Today in Judaism - Today is: Thursday, Adar I 20, 5774 · February 20, 2014
Daily Quote:
Achashverosh was a fool: first he killed his wife at the urging of his friend, and then he killed his friend at the urging of his wife.--Yalkut Shimoni
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 5th Portion Exodus 36:20-37:16 with Rashi
Chapter 36
20. And he made the planks for the Mishkan of acacia wood, upright. כ. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים לַמִּשְׁכָּן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים עֹמְדִים:
21. Ten cubits [was] the length of each plank, and a cubit and a half [was] the width of each plank. כא. עֶשֶׂר אַמֹּת אֹרֶךְ הַקָּרֶשׁ וְאַמָּה וַחֲצִי הָאַמָּה רֹחַב הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד:
22. Each plank had two square pegs, rung like, one even with the other; so did he make for all the planks of the Mishkan. כב. שְׁתֵּי יָדֹת לַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד מְשֻׁלָּבֹת אַחַת אֶל אֶחָת כֵּן עָשָׂה לְכֹל קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
23. And he made the planks for the Mishkan, twenty planks for the southern side. כג. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים לַמִּשְׁכָּן עֶשְׂרִים קְרָשִׁים לִפְאַת נֶגֶב תֵּימָנָה:
24. And he made forty silver sockets under the twenty planks; two sockets under one plank for its two square pegs, and two sockets under one plank for its two square pegs. כד. וְאַרְבָּעִים אַדְנֵי כֶסֶף עָשָׂה תַּחַת עֶשְׂרִים הַקְּרָשִׁים שְׁנֵי אֲדָנִים תַּחַת הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד לִשְׁתֵּי יְדֹתָיו וּשְׁנֵי אֲדָנִים תַּחַת הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד לִשְׁתֵּי יְדֹתָיו:
25. And for the second side of the Mishkan on the northern side he made twenty planks. כה. וּלְצֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן הַשֵּׁנִית לִפְאַת צָפוֹן עָשָׂה עֶשְׂרִים קְרָשִׁים:
26. And their forty silver sockets: two sockets under one plank and two sockets under one plank. כו. וְאַרְבָּעִים אַדְנֵיהֶם כָּסֶף שְׁנֵי אֲדָנִים תַּחַת הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי אֲדָנִים תַּחַת הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד:
27. And for the western end of the Mishkan he made six planks. כז. וּלְיַרְכְּתֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן יָמָּה עָשָׂה שִׁשָּׁה קְרָשִׁים:
28. And he made two planks at the corners of the Mishkan at the end. כח. וּשְׁנֵי קְרָשִׁים עָשָׂה לִמְקֻצְעֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן בַּיַּרְכָתָיִם:
29. And they were matched evenly from below, and together they matched at its top, [to be put] into the one ring; so did he make for both of them; for the two corners. כט. וְהָיוּ תוֹאֲמִם מִלְּמַטָּה וְיַחְדָּו יִהְיוּ תַמִּים אֶל רֹאשׁוֹ אֶל הַטַּבַּעַת הָאֶחָת כֵּן עָשָׂה לִשְׁנֵיהֶם לִשְׁנֵי הַמִּקְצֹעֹת:
30. And there were eight planks and their silver sockets, sixteen sockets two sockets [under one plank and] two sockets under one plank. ל. וְהָיוּ שְׁמֹנָה קְרָשִׁים וְאַדְנֵיהֶם כֶּסֶף שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר אֲדָנִים שְׁנֵי אֲדָנִים שְׁנֵי אֲדָנִים תַּחַת הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד:
31. And he made bars of acacia wood, five for the planks of one side of the Mishkan, לא. וַיַּעַשׂ בְּרִיחֵי עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים חֲמִשָּׁה לְקַרְשֵׁי צֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָאֶחָת:
32. and five bars for the planks of the second side of the Mishkan, and five bars for the planks of the [rear] side of the Mishkan, on the westward end. לב. וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְרִיחִם לְקַרְשֵׁי צֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן הַשֵּׁנִית וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְרִיחִם לְקַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן לַיַּרְכָתַיִם יָמָּה:
33. And he made the middle bar to penetrate in the midst of the planks from one end to the other end. לג. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַבְּרִיחַ הַתִּיכֹן לִבְרֹחַ בְּתוֹךְ הַקְּרָשִׁים מִן הַקָּצֶה אֶל הַקָּצֶה:
34. And he overlaid the planks with gold, and their rings he made of gold as holders for the bars, and he overlaid the bars with gold. לד. וְאֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים צִפָּה זָהָב וְאֶת טַבְּעֹתָם עָשָׂה זָהָב בָּתִּים לַבְּרִיחִם וַיְצַף אֶת הַבְּרִיחִם זָהָב:
35. And he made the dividing curtain of blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen; the work of a master weaver he made it, in a [woven] cherubim design. לה. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַפָּרֹכֶת תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה חשֵׁב עָשָׂה אֹתָהּ כְּרֻבִים:
36. And he made for it four pillars of acacia wood, and he overlaid them with gold, their hooks [were] gold, and he cast for them four silver sockets. לו. וַיַּעַשׂ לָהּ אַרְבָּעָה עַמּוּדֵי שִׁטִּים וַיְצַפֵּם זָהָב וָוֵיהֶם זָהָב וַיִּצֹק לָהֶם אַרְבָּעָה אַדְנֵי כָסֶף:
37. And he made a screen for the entrance of the tent, of blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen the work of an embroiderer, לז. וַיַּעַשׂ מָסָךְ לְפֶתַח הָאֹהֶל תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם:
38. and its five pillars and their hooks, and he overlaid their tops and their bands with gold, and their five sockets were copper. לח. וְאֶת עַמּוּדָיו חֲמִשָּׁה וְאֶת וָוֵיהֶם וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב וְאַדְנֵיהֶם חֲמִשָּׁה נְחשֶׁת:
Chapter 37
1. Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. א. וַיַּעַשׂ בְּצַלְאֵל אֶת הָאָרֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:
Bezalel made: Since he devoted himself to the work more than the other wise men, it was called by his name [i. e., the work is attributed to him alone]. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 10]
ויעש בצלאל: לפי שנתן נפשו על המלאכה יותר משאר חכמים, נקראת על שמו:
2. And he overlaid it with pure gold from inside and from outside, and he made for it a golden crown all around. ב. וַיְצַפֵּהוּ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ וַיַּעַשׂ לוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:
3. And he cast four golden rings for it upon its four corners, two rings on its one side and two rings on its other side. ג. וַיִּצֹק לוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב עַל אַרְבַּע פַּעֲמֹתָיו וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעוֹ הָאֶחָת וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעוֹ הַשֵּׁנִית:
4. And he made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. ד. וַיַּעַשׂ בַּדֵּי עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וַיְצַף אֹתָם זָהָב:
5. And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark. ה. וַיָּבֵא אֶת הַבַּדִּים בַּטַּבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעֹת הָאָרֹן לָשֵׂאת אֶת הָאָרֹן:
6. And he made an ark cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. ו. וַיַּעַשׂ כַּפֹּרֶת זָהָב טָהוֹר אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכָּהּ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבָּהּ:
7. And he made two golden cherubim he made them of hammered work, from the two ends of the ark cover, ז. וַיַּעַשׂ שְׁנֵי כְרֻבִים זָהָב מִקְשָׁה עָשָׂה אֹתָם מִשְּׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַכַּפֹּרֶת:
8. one cherub from the one end and the other cherub from the other end; from the ark cover he made the cherubim from its two ends. ח. כְּרוּב אֶחָד מִקָּצָה מִזֶּה וּכְרוּב אֶחָד מִקָּצָה מִזֶּה מִן הַכַּפֹּרֶת עָשָׂה אֶת הַכְּרֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי קְצוֹתָיו:
9. The cherubim had their wings spread upwards, shielding the ark cover with their wings, with their faces toward one another; [turned] toward the ark cover were the faces of the cherubim. ט. וַיִּהְיוּ הַכְּרֻבִים פֹּרְשֵׂי כְנָפַיִם לְמַעְלָה סֹכְכִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת וּפְנֵיהֶם אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו אֶל הַכַּפֹּרֶת הָיוּ פְּנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:
10. And he made a table of acacia wood two cubits long, one cubit wide, and a cubit and a half high. י. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:
11. He overlaid it with pure gold, and he made for it a golden crown all around. יא. וַיְצַף אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וַיַּעַשׂ לוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:
12. And he made for it a frame a handbreadth [wide] all around, and he made a golden crown for its frame all around. יב. וַיַּעַשׂ לוֹ מִסְגֶּרֶת טֹפַח סָבִיב וַיַּעַשׂ זֵר זָהָב לְמִסְגַּרְתּוֹ סָבִיב:
13. And he cast for it four golden rings, and he placed the rings on the four corners that are on its four legs. יג. וַיִּצֹק לוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַטַּבָּעֹת עַל אַרְבַּע הַפֵּאֹת אֲשֶׁר לְאַרְבַּע רַגְלָיו:
14. The rings were opposite the frame [as] holders for the poles [with which] to carry the table. יד. לְעֻמַּת הַמִּסְגֶּרֶת הָיוּ הַטַּבָּעֹת בָּתִּים לַבַּדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן:
15. And he made the poles of acacia wood, and he overlaid them with gold, to carry the table. טו. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וַיְצַף אֹתָם זָהָב לָשֵׂאת אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן:
16. And he made the implements that are on the table: its forms, its spoons, its half pipes, and its supports with which it will be covered of pure gold. טז. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַכֵּלִים | אֲשֶׁר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֶת קְעָרֹתָיו וְאֶת כַּפֹּתָיו וְאֵת מְנַקִּיֹּתָיו וְאֶת הַקְּשָׂוֹת אֲשֶׁר יֻסַּךְ בָּהֵן זָהָב טָהוֹר:
-------
Tehillim: Chapters 97 - 103
Chapter 97
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the earth will exult; the multitudes of islands will rejoice.
2. Clouds and dense darkness will surround Him; justice and mercy will be the foundation of His throne.
3. Fire will go before Him and consume His foes all around.
4. His lightnings will illuminate the world; the earth will see and tremble.
5. The mountains will melt like wax before the Lord, before the Master of all the earth.
6. The heavens will declare His justice, and all the nations will behold His glory.
7. All who worship graven images, who take pride in idols, will be ashamed; all idol worshippers will prostrate themselves before Him.
8. Zion will hear and rejoice, the towns of Judah will exult, because of Your judgments, O Lord.
9. For You, Lord, transcend all the earth; You are exceedingly exalted above all the supernal beings.
10. You who love the Lord, hate evil; He watches over the souls of His pious ones, He saves them from the hand of the wicked.
11. Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart.
12. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, and extol His holy Name.
Chapter 98
This psalm describes how Israel will praise God for the Redemption.
1. A psalm. Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has performed wonders; His right hand and holy arm have wrought deliverance for Him.
2. The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His justice before the eyes of the nations.
3. He has remembered His kindness and faithfulness to the House of Israel; all, from the farthest corners of the earth, witnessed the deliverance by our God.
4. Raise your voices in jubilation to the Lord, all the earth; burst into joyous song and chanting.
5. Sing to the Lord with a harp, with a harp and the sound of song.
6. With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, jubilate before the King, the Lord.
7. The sea and its fullness will roar in joy, the earth and its inhabitants.
8. The rivers will clap their hands, the mountains will sing together.
9. [They will rejoice] before the Lord, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with righteousness.
Chapter 99
This psalm refers to the wars of Gog and Magog, which will precede the Redemption.
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the nations will tremble; the earth will quake before Him Who is enthroned upon the cherubim,
2. [before] the Lord Who is in Zion, Who is great and exalted above all the peoples.
3. They will extol Your Name which is great, awesome and holy.
4. And [they will praise] the might of the King Who loves justice. You have established uprightness; You have made [the laws of] justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His footstool; He is holy.
6. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who invoke His Name, would call upon the Lord and He would answer them.
7. He would speak to them from a pillar of cloud; they observed His testimonies and the decrees which He gave them.
8. Lord our God, You have answered them; You were a forgiving God for their sake, yet bringing retribution for their own misdeeds.
9. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His holy mountain, for the Lord our God is holy.
Chapter 100
This psalm inspires the hearts of those who suffer in this world. Let them, nevertheless, serve God with joy, for all is for their good, as in the verse: "He whom God loves does He chastise." The psalm also refers to the thanksgiving sacrifice-the only sacrifice to be offered in the Messianic era.
1. A psalm of thanksgiving. Let all the earth sing in jubilation to the Lord.
2. Serve the Lord with joy; come before Him with exultation.
3. Know that the Lord is God; He has made us and we are His, His people and the sheep of His pasture.
4. Enter His gates with gratitude, His courtyards with praise; give thanks to Him, bless His Name.
5. For the Lord is good; His kindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness is for all generations.
Chapter 101
This psalm speaks of David's secluding himself from others, and of his virtuous conduct even in his own home.
1. By David, a psalm. I will sing of [Your] kindness and justice; to You, O Lord, will I chant praise!
2. I will pay heed to the path of integrity-O when will it come to me? I shall walk with the innocence of my heart [even] within my house.
3. I shall not place an evil thing before my eyes; I despise the doing of wayward deeds, it does not cling to me.
4. A perverse heart shall depart from me; I shall not know evil.
5. He who slanders his fellow in secret, him will I cut down; one with haughty eyes and a lustful heart, him I cannot suffer.
6. My eyes are upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the path of integrity, he shall minister to me.
7. He that practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; the speaker of lies shall have no place before my eyes.
8. Every morning I will cut down all the wicked of the land, to excise all evildoers from the city of the Lord.
Chapter 102
An awe-inspiring prayer for the exiled, and an appropriate prayer for anyone in distress.
1. A prayer of the poor man when he is faint [with affliction], and pours out his tale of woe before the Lord.
2. O Lord, hear my prayer, let my cry reach You!
3. Hide not Your face from me on the day of my distress; turn Your ear to me; on the day that I call, answer me quickly.
4. For my days have vanished with the smoke; my bones are dried up as a hearth.
5. Smitten like grass and withered is my heart, for I have forgotten to eat my bread.
6. From the voice of my sigh, my bone cleaves to my flesh.
7. I am like the bird of the wilderness; like the owl of the wasteland have I become.
8. In haste I fled; I was like a bird, alone on a roof.
9. All day my enemies disgrace me; those who ridicule me curse using my name.1
10. For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mixed my drink with tears,
11. because of Your anger and Your wrath-for You have raised me up, then cast me down.
12. My days are like the fleeting shadow; I wither away like the grass.
13. But You, Lord, will be enthroned forever, and Your remembrance is for all generations.
14. You will arise and have mercy on Zion, for it is time to be gracious to her; the appointed time has come.
15. For Your servants cherish her stones, and love her dust.
16. Then the nations will fear the Name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth Your glory,
17. when [they see that] the Lord has built Zion, He has appeared in His glory.
18. He turned to the entreaty of the prayerful, and did not despise their prayer.
19. Let this be written for the last generation, so that the newborn nation will praise the Lord.
20. For He looked down from His holy heights; from heaven, the Lord gazed upon the earth,
21. to hear the cry of the bound, to untie those who are doomed to die,
22. so that the Name of the Lord be declared in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem,
23. when nations and kingdoms will gather together to serve the Lord.
24. He weakened my strength on the way; He shortened my days.
25. I would say: "My God, do not remove me in the midst of my days! You Whose years endure through all generations.”
26. In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
27. They will perish, but You will endure; all of them will wear out like a garment; You will exchange them like a robe, and they will vanish.
28. But You remain the same; Your years will not end.
29. The children of Your servants will abide; their seed shall be established before You.
Chapter 103
David's prayer when he was ill, this psalm is an appropriate prayer on behalf of the sick, especially when offered by the sick person himself while his soul is yet in his body. He can then bless God from his depths, body and soul. Read, and find repose for your soul.
1. By David. Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all my being, His holy Name.
2. My soul, bless the Lord; forget not all His favors:
3. Who forgives all your sins, Who heals all your illnesses;
4. Who redeems your life from the grave, Who crowns you with kindness and mercy;
5. Who satisfies your mouth with goodness; like the eagle, your youth is renewed.
6. The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.
7. He made His ways known to Moses, His deeds to the Children of Israel.
8. The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. He will not contend for eternity, nor harbor ill will forever.
10. He has not dealt with us according to our transgressions, nor requited us according to our sins.
11. For as high as heaven is above the earth, so has His kindness been mighty over those who fear Him.
12. As far as the east is from the west, so has He distanced our transgressions from us.
13. As a father has compassion on his children, so has the Lord had compassion on those who fear Him.
14. For He knows our nature; He is mindful that we are but dust.
15. As for man, his days are like grass; like a flower of the field, so he sprouts.
16. When a wind passes over him, he is gone; his place recognizes him no more.
17. But the kindness of the Lord is forever and ever upon those who fear Him, and His righteousness is [secured] for children's children,
18. to those who keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commands to do them.
19. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His kingship has dominion over all.
20. Bless the Lord, you His angels who are mighty in strength, who do His bidding to obey the voice of His speech.
21. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will.
22. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all the places of His dominion. My soul, bless the Lord!
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 30
Lessons in Tanya
Today's Tanya Lesson
Thursday, Adar I 20, 5774 - February 20, 2014
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 30
ואפילו בבחינת סור מרע, יכול כל איש משכיל למצוא בנפשו שאינו סר לגמרי מהרע בכל מכל כל
Even in the category of “turn away from evil,” every thinking man can discover within himself that he does not turn completely and totally away from evil,
במקום שצריך למלחמה עצומה כערך הנ״ל, ואפילו פחות מערך הנ״ל
in a situation requiring a battle of the level i.e., magnitude described above, i.e., the battle required of the kal shebekalim, or even in a situation requiring a battle of a lesser magnitude.
כגון להפסיק באמצע שיחה נאה, או סיפור בגנות חברו
For example, he may find that he does not summon up the strength to stop in the middle of a pleasant gossip, or in the middle of relating a tale discrediting his fellow,
ואפילו גנאי קטן וקל מאד, אף שהוא אמת, ואפילו כדי לנקות עצמו
as he ought to do even if it is a very slight slur, and even if it be true, and even though his purpose in relating it is to exonerate himself —
כנודע מהא דאמר רבי שמעון לאביו רבינו הקדוש: לאו אנא כתביה אלא יהודא חייטא כתביה, ואמר לו: כלך מלשון הרע עיין שם בגמרא, ריש פרק י׳ דבבא בתרא
as is known from what Rabbi Shimon said to his father Rabbeinu HaKadosh concerning a problematic bill of divorce that was improperly written: “I did not write it, Yehudah the tailor wrote it,” where the slur was a minor one, and the purpose was self-vindication — and yet his father replied: “Keep away from slander.” (Note there in the Gemara, Tractate Bava Batra, 1beginning of ch. 10.)
וכהאי גוונא כמה מילי דשכיחי טובא
The same applies to very many similar things which occur frequently.
There, too, one will find that he does not resist his evil impulse as he ought to, even in the category of “turn away from evil.”
ובפרט בענין לקדש עצמו במותר לו, שהוא מדאורייתא, כמו שכתוב: קדושים תהיו וגו׳, והתקדשתם וגו׳
This is especially true with regard to sanctifying oneself by refraining from indulgence in permitted matters — and this is a Biblical commandment, 2derived from the verses: 3“You shall be holy,” and “Sanctify yourselves,” etc.
וגם דברי סופרים חמורים מדברי תורה וכו׳
Moreover, even according to the opinion that this commandment is not of Biblical origin, yet 4“Rabbinic enactments are even stricter than Biblical laws,” etc. — and yet one will often find himself succumbing to self-indulgence when the temptation is strong and requires a battle to overcome it.
אלא שכל אלו וכיוצא בהן הן מעוונות שהאדם דש בעקביו
But all these and similar matters are among 5“the sins which people trample underfoot,” insensitive to their importance,
וגם נעשו כהיתר מחמת שעבר ושנה וכו׳
and which have come to be regarded as permissible because they are committed repeatedly. 6
All the above-mentioned calculations, then, can lead one to conclude that he is no better than the kal shebekalim. Like the kal shebekalim, he too fails to wage war against his evil impulse when it is required of him. Yet this still does not explain the requirement that one consider oneself lower than every man. In what way is he worse than the kal shebekalim? In answer, the Alter Rebbe continues:
FOOTNOTES 1.164b. 2.See ch. 27. 3.Vayikra 19:2; 20:7. 4.Sanhedrin 88b. 5.Avodah Zarah 18a. 6.Yoma 86b.
-------
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Negative Commandment 322
Administering the Death Penalty on Shabbat
"You shall not kindle fire throughout your settlements on the Shabbat day" —Exodus 35:3.
It is forbidden for the courts to administer punishments on Shabbat. The Sages interpreted the above verse as an injunction against executing a criminal via burning (one of the four methods of capital punishment employed by the courts) on Shabbat—and the same rule applies to all other forms of capital punishment. From this verse the Sages also extrapolated the prohibition against holding any court proceedings on Shabbat.
Administering the Death Penalty on Shabbat
Negative Commandment 322
Translated by Berel Bell
The 322nd prohibition is that we [i.e. the Beth Din] are forbidden from inflicting punishment upon transgressors and carrying out judgments on Shabbos.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not burn any fire [wherever you may live on the Shabbos day]."
The meaning of this is, "Do not burn someone who has been convicted and condemned to execution by s'reifa (burning).2" This applies to the other methods of execution as well.3
The Mechilta4 says as follows: "[The verse says,] 'do not burn any fire'; but the act of making a fire is already prohibited5! However, it is mentioned separately to teach us a different law — that just as burning is distinctive in that [in spite of the fact that] it is one of the types of judicial execution and [therefore a mitzvah,6 but nevertheless it] does not override the prohibition of Shabbos, so too the other forms of execution do not override Shabbos."
The Gemara7 says that making a fire "l'lav yotzas"8 [it is singled out because it is "only" a regular prohibition]. However, this opinion is not accepted as the final halachah9. Rather, the Gemara concludes l'chalek yotzas [it is singled out to show that each melachah is treated separately], and therefore one must bring an offering for every single melachah which was performed, as explained there.10
[Therefore, according to the Gemara's conclusion, there is no particular prohibition in this verse and it can be used to teach us this prohibition of inflicting punishment on Shabbos.
The Rambam now brings a source which extends the prohibition to all kinds of judicial punishment11]
The Jerusalem Talmud12 quotes [the end of the verse, " 'Do not burn fire] wherever you may live.' Rav Ilah quotes Rav Yanai as saying that we learn from this verse that a beth din is not allowed to judge on Shabbos."13
FOOTNOTES
1. Ex. 35:3.
2. See P228.
3. See P226, P227, P229. Malkos (flogging) and other punishments are also prohibited on Shabbos (Hilchos Shabbos, 24:7). See Jerusalem Talmud quoted at the end of the mitzvah.
4. On Ex. 35:3. The Mechilta explains why this verse cannot be interpreted literally, i.e. a prohibition against making a fire.
5. Under the general prohibition, "do not do melachah on Shabbos." See N320.
6. See Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Shabbos 24:7.
7. Shabbos 70a.
8. This Gemara poses the same question as the Mechilta which the Rambam has just quoted: If all forms of melachah are already prohibited, why was making a fire mentioned separately? The Gemara brings two answers to this question: "l'lav yotzas"or"l'chalek yotzas."
The first answer (l'lav yotzas) is that fire is singled out because it is different from other melachos. This opinion holds that while other melachos are capital offenses punishable by kores, etc. (see N320 and footnotes there), the prohibition against making a fire is only punished by flogging. This is called "l'lav yotzas," — that it was singled out ("yotzas") from all the prohibited acts of Shabbos to be treated like other prohibitions of the Torah ("lav") , i.e. punishable by flogging instead of kores.
The second answer ("l'chalek yotzas") is that fire is the same as any other melachah, but is singled out to teach something about all the melachos. This opinion holds that if a person does several melachos on Shabbos, each one is treated separately. We know that if a person did a melachah on Shabbos unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering (see N320, ibid.). If he did two types of melachah (e.g. cooking and writing), he would bring two sin-offerings. This is called "l'chalek yotzas," — that it was singled out ("yotzas") from all the prohibited acts of Shabbos to teach that each melachah must be treated separately ("l'chalek") regarding the sacrifices.
9. According to the opinion "l'lav yotzas," the verse has already been used to teach us a separate prohibition — that one may not make a fire on Shabbos. We are now left with a question on our commandment N322; how can we learn two prohibitions from the same verse?
The Rambam answers this question by pointing out that the Gemara concludes not like that opinion, but rather "l'chalek yotzas". Therefore, making a fire is included in the general prohibition, and since there is no separate prohibition learned from the verse, it is free to be used for this mitzvah. See Yad Halevi, N322. (See also Chinuch 114, for another explanation of the Rambam's intention in quoting this Gemara.)
10. See Einayim L'mishpat, Yevamos 6b (p.12) regarding the precise choice of words the Rambam uses.
11. See Derech Mitzvosecha (Tzemach Tzedek) p. 88a. Sefer Hamitzvos (Heller) p. 181, note 9. Sources quoted in Mishneh Torah, Kapach, 5746, Hil. Shabbos, Ch. 24, note 19. But see Rif Perlow Vol. 2, p. 392a.
12. Sanhedrin 4:6.
13. The phrase, "wherever you may live," is used in Num. 35:29 to refer to Beth Din. That teaches us that the phrase here also refers to a Beth Din. This Talmudic passage teaches that the prohibition includes all types of judgment, not only execution.
___________________________________
Rambam:
1 Chapter: Mikvot Chapter 7
Chapter 7
Halacha 1
A mikveh is not disqualified, neither because of a change of its water's taste, nor a change of its smell, only because its color changes. Any substance that may not be used to constitute a mikveh initially disqualifies one, if it causes its color to change.
What is implied? Wine, milk, blood, or other liquids that are classified as fruit juices do not disqualify a mikveh if three lugim of them fall into it, because it was only said that three lugim of drawn water disqualify a mikveh. They do, however, disqualify it if they change the color of its water.
Even when a mikveh contains 100 se'ah and a log of wine or fruit juice falls into it and changes its color, it is unacceptable. Similarly, if a mikveh contains 20 se'ah or less of acceptable water and a se'ah of wine or fruit juice fell into it without changing its color, the water is acceptable as it was beforehand. The se'ah of wine or fruit juice, however, is not counted in the measure of the mikveh. If another 20 se'ah of acceptable water were added to the original 20, it is an acceptable mikveh.
Halacha 2
There are substances that cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it; others that disqualify it and do not cause it to be considered acceptable, and others that neither cause it to be acceptable nor disqualify it.
Halacha 3
These are the substances that cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it: snow, hail, sleet, ice, salt, and flowing mud. What is implied? When a mikveh contains 39 se'ah of water and a se'ah of one of these substances falls into it, the mikveh is acceptable and complete. Thus they cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it.
Even if one brought 40 se'ah of snow initially and placed them in a cavity and crushed it there, the mikveh is complete and acceptable.
Halacha 4
These are the substances that disqualify a mikveh and never cause it to be considered acceptable: drawn water, whether pure or impure, water that was used for pickling, water that was used for cooking, a mixture of water and grape dregs before they become vinegar, and beer.
What is implied? When a mikveh contains 40 se'ah minus the weight of a dinar and the weight of a dinar of one of these liquids falls into it, it is not included in the measure of a mikveh and does not complete it. If three lugim of one of these liquids falls into a mikveh, it disqualifies it.
Halacha 5
These are the substances that neither disqualify a mikveh, nor cause it to be considered acceptable: other liquids, fruit juice, fish brine, fish oil, and a mixture of water and grape dregs that became vinegar.
What is implied? If there was a mikveh that contained 39 se'ah and a se'ah of these liquids fell into it, it does not cause it to be acceptable. Nevertheless, the water the mikveh contains is acceptable as it was beforehand, for these liquids disqualify a mikveh only if they change its color, as explained.
Halacha 6
There are times when the latter liquids cause a mikveh to be considered as acceptable. What is implied? A mikveh contained 40 se'ah, a se'ah of these liquids fell in, and then a se'ah was removed from the mikveh's waters. The 40 se'ah that remain still constitute an acceptable mikveh.
Halacha 7
When one washed baskets used to collect olives or grapes in a mikveh, causing the water's color to change, it is acceptable.
Halacha 8
Water of dyes disqualify a mikveh if three lugim fall in, but do not disqualify it because they changed its color.
Halacha 9
When wine, black fluid from olives, or other fruit juices fall into a mikveh and change the color of its water, disqualifying it, how can it be rectified? If the mikveh contains less than 40 se'ah, one should wait until rain descends and changes its color back to water's natural color. If the mikveh contains 40 se'ah of acceptable water, one may fill buckets and pour water into it until its color reverts to water's natural color.
If wine, the black fluid from olives, or the like falls into a mikveh and changes the color of some of its water, if it does not have 40 se'ah of water whose color has not changed, one should not immerse in it. Even if it contains 40 se'ah, if one immerses in a place whose color has changed, his immersion is invalid. Even if a barrel of wine was broken and fell into the Mediterranean Sea and the color of the water in that place is the color of wine, one who immerses in that place is not considered to have immersed.
Halacha 10
When even a dinar-sized portion of wine fell into three lugim of drawn water and change their color, so that they are all the color of wine and then they fell into a mikveh they do not disqualify it, unless they change its color.
Halacha 11
When there are three lugim minus a dinar-sized portion of water and milk or fruit juice falls into the water, but its color remains that of water, it does not disqualify a mikveh if it falls into it. A mikveh is not disqualified unless three lugim of drawn water fall into it that were not mixed with any other liquid or with fruit juice.
Halacha 12
When the color of a mikveh changes on its own accord without anything falling into it, it is acceptable. It is only disqualified if its color changed due to another liquid.
-------
Rambam:
3 Chapters: Shabbos Chapter Fifteen, Shabbos Chapter Sixteen, Shabbos Chapter Seventeen
Chapter Fifteen
Halacha 1
A person standing in a public domain may move [articles] throughout a private domain. Similarly, a person standing in a private domain may move [articles] within a public domain, provided he does not transfer them beyond four cubits.1 If he transfers an article [beyond that distance], he is not liable, because he is located in a different domain.2
Similarly, a person standing in a private domain may open [a door with a key3] in a public domain.4 [One standing] in a public domain may open [a door with a key] in a private domain.
One may force feed an animal whose head is inside [a stall, although] the major portion of its body is outside.5 One may not, [however, force feed a] camel unless its head and the major portion of its body is within [the stall], since its neck is long.
Halacha 2
A person should not stand in a private domain and [extend his head into] the public domain to drink, nor [should he stand] in a public domain and [extend his head into] a private domain to drink, unless he brings his head and the majority of his body into the domain in which he is drinking.
When do the above [restrictions] apply? When he is drinking with attractive vessels that he needs.6 [In this instance, our Sages instituted a] decree, lest he transfer [the drinking vessels]. If, however, [the person uses] vessels that are not attractive and which he does not require, all that is necessary is that he bring in his head; it is not necessary that he bring in the majority of his body.7 If a cistern of water is located in a carmelit, [the above leniency applies] even when [the person] uses vessels that are attractive.8
Halacha 3
A person may stand in a public domain, [extend his hand,] collect water that is flowing from a drainpipe or a wall [while the water is] in the air, and drink, provided he does not touch the drainpipe or the wall and collect the water from them.9
[The following rules apply] should he [in fact] touch [the drainpipe or the wall]: If the place he touches is more than ten [handbreadths] high and within three handbreadths of the roof, the act is forbidden.10 It is as if he removed [the water] from the roof, which is a private domain.
Similarly, if the drainpipe was four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] and one collected water from it, this is forbidden regardless of whether the pipe is within ten handbreadths of the ground11 or above ten handbreadths.12 Why is the person not held liable? Because the water is not at rest, but rather continuing to flow.13
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when] a projection extends [from the wall of a building] near a window: If the projection is above ten handbreadths high, its use is permitted,14 for the public domain extends only ten handbreadths [above the ground].15 Therefore, it is permissible to use the entire wall, with the exception of the bottom ten handbreadths.16
Halacha 5
When does the above apply? When there is [only] one projection extending into the space. When, however, there are two projections extending from the wall, one below the other,17 even though they are both more than ten handbreadths high,18 [different rules apply]: If the upper projection near the window is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] in area, its use is forbidden,19 for it is a domain in its own right, and the projection below it is a separate domain.20 Accordingly, they each cause the other to be forbidden,21 for [the people in] two domains cannot [jointly] use the space of one domain.
Halacha 6
If both the upper projection and the lower projection are not four [handbreadths by four handbreadths], both of them may be used.22 Similarly, [in such a situation,] one may use the entire wall with the exception of the bottom ten handbreadths.
If the lower projection was four [handbreadths by four handbreadths], but the upper projection was not four [handbreadths by four handbreadths], [an individual dwelling in the upper storey] may use only that portion of the upper [projection] that is directly opposite his window.23 It is forbidden to use the remainder of the projection that extends on either side of the window, because of the lower projection, which is considered to be a separate domain.24
Halacha 7
Whenever there is a projection that extends over the public domain25 and may be used, one may place upon it and remove from it only utensils of earthenware, glass, or the like, for if they fall into the public domain they will break. Other utensils and food are prohibited [to be placed there], lest they fall into the public domain, and [one descend and] bring them [into the home].26
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when] there are two houses on opposite sides of the public domain: If a person throws an article from one to the other and the article is ten [handbreadths] above the ground, he is not liable,27 provided both houses belong to him or there is an eruv between them.28 One may throw even garments and metal utensils.29
If one of [the two houses] was higher than the other, and they were thus not on the same level, it is forbidden to throw a garment or the like, lest it fall and [one descend and] bring it. One may, however, throw earthenware utensils and the like.30
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] a cistern located in the public domain has an opening [to a home] above it: The cistern and the sand [piled around it] are measured together [to see if their height reaches] ten [handbreadths]. [If it does,31] one may draw water from it on the Sabbath.
When does the above apply? When [the cistern] is within four handbreadths of the wall, for then a person cannot pass between them.32 If, however, it is further removed,33 one may not draw water from it unless the sand [piled around it] is ten [handbreadths] high.34 Thus, when the bucket is raised above the sand [pile],35 it enters a makom patur.
Halacha 10
It is permitted to pour water [from] a window [of a home] to a garbage heap located in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high, on the Sabbath.36
To what does the above apply? To a garbage heap belonging to the community, for this is unlikely to be removed. We may not, however, pour water onto a garbage heap belonging to an individual.37
It is possible that the garbage heap was cleared away 38 and thus, [unknowingly,39] one will be pouring into the public domain.
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply to] a water conduit that passes through a courtyard: If it is ten [handbreadths] high and between four [handbreadths] and ten cubits wide, we may not draw water from it on the Sabbath, unless one erects a partition [in the water] ten handbreadths high at its entrance [to the courtyard] and its exit.
If it is not ten [handbreadths] high or is less than four [handbreadths] wide, we may draw water from it without [erecting] a partition.
Halacha 12
When [the water conduit that passes through the courtyard]40 is more than ten cubits wide, although it is less than ten handbreadths high, we may not draw water from it unless a partition is erected. Since it is more than ten [cubits] wide, it is considered to be an open space and nullifies the existence of the divider.41
What is the ruling regarding carrying in the courtyard as a whole?42 If there is even a small portion [of the wall] remaining on both sides of the opening, or if a portion [of the wall] four handbreadths in size remains on one side of the opening, it is permitted to carry in the entire courtyard.43 It is forbidden only to draw water from the conduit.44 If, however, no portion of the wall remains, it is forbidden to carry in the entire courtyard, for it has been opened up to the sea,45 which is a carmelit.
Halacha 13
How must the partitions be erected in the water? If [the majority of the partition] is above the water, at least a handbreadth of the partition must descend into the water.46 If the partition as a whole descends into the water, at least a handbreadth must rise above the water level. [In this manner,] the water in the courtyard will be distinct, [from the water in the conduit on either side of the courtyard].
Although the partition does not reach the ground [in the conduit], since it is ten handbreadths high, it is permitted. The use of a partition that remains hanging was allowed only with regard to water.47 Since the prohibition against carrying this water is Rabbinic in origin,48 [the Sages] were lenient regarding [the nature of] the partition [required], for its purpose is only to create a distinction.
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply] when a conduit of water passes between several courtyards and there are openings [from the courtyards] to it:49 If it is not the minimum size [of a domain],50one may lower buckets from the windows and draw water from it on the Sabbath.51
When does the above apply? When [the conduit] is not more than three handbreadths away from the wall. If, however, [the conduit] is more than three handbreadths away from the wall, we may not draw water from it52 unless there are projections extending from the walls on either side. Thus the conduit would be considered as if it passes through the courtyard.53
Halacha 15
[The following rules govern] a balcony54 that extends over a body of water with an aperture55 [in its floor] that opens to the water: We may not draw water from it on the Sabbath56 unless a partition ten handbreadths high is constructed over the water parallel to the opening in the balcony.57 Alternatively, we may construct a partition descending from the balcony to the water. Then, we consider this partition as descending until it touches the water.58
Just as we may draw water from [the body of water] after making the partition, so too we may pour water from the balcony to the water.59 [The rationale is:] One is pouring into a carmelit.60
Halacha 16
We must not pour water into a courtyard that is less than four cubits by four cubits61 on the Sabbath, because [the water] will flow into the public domain rapidly.62
Therefore, it is necessary to dig a pit that contains two seah63 in the courtyard or in the public domain next to the courtyard, so that the water will collect there. [If the pit is within the public domain], one must build a domed covering64 over this pit from the outside so that the pit will not be seen in the public domain.65
The courtyard and the patio adjoining it are combined [when calculating] the four cubits. How large is a pit that contains two seah? [A pit] half a cubit by a half a cubit in area and three fifths of a cubit high.
Halacha 17
If the pit cannot contain two seah, we may pour [no more than] its contents into it. If it can contain two seah, we may pour [any amount of] water into it, even 60 seah, despite the fact that the water will overflow and spill from the pit outward.
When does the above apply? In the rainy season, at which time the courtyards are muddied and many drainpipes spread water. Thus, onlookers will not say that this person is making use of the courtyard and the water is flowing into the courtyard because of his power. In the summer, by contrast, if [the pit] can contain two seah, only that amount may be poured into it. If it cannot contain two seah, no water at all may be poured into it.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply] to a drain through which water is poured and the water flows under the ground into the public domain, and to a gutter when water is poured over its mouth and the water flows down a wall and descends to the public domain: Even if the wall is 100 cubits long or the stretch of ground under which [the water] passes is 100 cubits long, it is forbidden to pour into the mouth of this drain or this gutter, for because of one's power, the water flows into the public domain. Instead, one should pour outside the drain, [allowing the water to] flow into the drain on its own accord.
Halacha 19
When does the above apply? In the summer. In the winter, by contrast, one may pour [water as mentioned above], and indeed, do so repeatedly, without inhibition. At that time, the gutters are flowing [with water], and a person desires that the water will be absorbed in its place.
[In contrast,] it is permitted for a person to pour water over a drain which flows into the carmelit, even in the summer. No decrees were enacted against [the effect of] a person's power in a carmelit. For this reason, it is permitted to pour [water] down the side of a ship and have it descend to the sea.
Halacha 20
A person who is standing in a ship should not draw water from the sea unless he builds a protrusion, four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths], extending from the ship above the sea.
When does the above apply? When [the deck of the ship] is within ten [handbreadths of the water level]. If, however, [the deck] is more than ten [handbreadths above the water level], he may draw water after erecting a protrusion of the smallest size. [The rationale for this leniency is that] he is drawing water through a makom patur, and the protrusion is necessary only to make a distinction.
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when] a person was reading a scroll in a carmelit, a portion of the scroll rolled into the public domain, and a portion remained in his hand: If it rolled more than four cubits, he should turn it face down and leave it. This is a decree, enacted lest [the scroll] drop from his hand and he carry it [more than] four cubits. If it rolled less than four cubits, he should roll it back toward himself. Similarly, if it rolled into a private domain, he should roll it back towards himself.
[The following rules apply when] a person was reading in a private domain and the scroll rolled into a public domain]: If it came to rest, he should turn the scroll face down. If it did not come to rest, but rather remained suspended in the air above the public domain and did not reach the earth, he may roll it back to himself.
Halacha 22
A person who moves thorns so that the public at large will not be injured [should adhere to the following guidelines]: If [the thorns] were in the public domain, he should move them less than four cubits at a time. If they were located in a carmelit, he may move them even 100 cubits in a normal manner.
Similarly, if a corpse [began to decompose,] emit foul odors, and become extremely abhorrent to the extent that the neighbors cannot bear to remain [in the same place], it may be taken from a private domain to a carmelit.
After a person descends to bathe in the sea, he should dry himself when he ascends, lest he carry the water that is on him more than four cubits in a carmelit.
FOOTNOTES
1.In both these instances, there is not even a Rabbinic prohibition against moving the articles. As mentioned in the notes on the following halachah, Rashi and the Rashba state that this leniency applies only with regard to articles the person does not require in the domain in which he is standing. If he needs them, the Rabbis decreed that they may not be moved, lest the person forget and bring the articles into the domain where he is standing. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 350:1) appears to favor the view of these authorities.
2.The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's decision, noting that Eruvin 99a would appear to hold a person liable in such a situation. The difficulty with the Rambam's statements is compounded by the fact that the passage cited above associates the law in question with the following decision, "A person who carries an article from the beginning [of a square] four cubits long to the end [of that square] in the public domain is liable, even when he lifts it above his head." Since the Rambam holds one liable in the latter instance (see Chapter 12, Halachah 14), it would seem that he would hold one liable with regard to the law under discussion. The Ra'avad's arguments are so powerful that the Maggid Mishneh suggests amending the text of the Mishneh Torah accordingly.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1527) notes the Ra'avad's question, and states that he checked all the ancient manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah available to him, and they all state that the person is not liable. Therefore, he explains that a person is not liable for transfering an article unless he is standing in one of the domains involved in the transfer. This concept is derived from the transfer of the articles in the construction of the Sanctuary. In this instance, the people were not standing in a domain other than those involved in the transfer. Based on this foundation, he offers an interpretation - albeit a slightly strained one - for the passage in Eruvin.
3.This and the following law refer to situations where the key is located in the domain where the door is located.
4.The Maggid Mishneh mentions the possibility of placing the key in the door as a forbidden transfer. In the present day, almost every keyhole would be considered to be a makom patur.
5.I.e., we are not worried that perhaps the animal will withdraw its neck and the person will carry the food outside the stall. Note the apparent contradiction to Chapter 17, Halachah 29.
6.As mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah, in their commentary on Eruvin 99a, the source for these halachot, Rashi and the Rashba maintain that if the person requires the vessels, the above restrictions apply even if the vessels are not attractive. The Maggid Mishneh states that although the Rambam's ruling appears most appropriate within the context of the Talmudic passage, in practice the more stringent ruling should be followed. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch also rules accordingly.
7.This relects a significant leniency. We are requiring the person to drink while bent over. Even so, the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to forbid the person from drinking, lest he forget, stand upright, and thus bring the drinking vessel into the other domain.
8.The prohibition against transferring an article from a carmelit is Rabbinic in nature. Hence, even if the person were to forget and transfer the drinking vessels to his domain, he would not violate Torah law. Accordingly, there is no need to prohibit him from drinking as a further safeguard.
This represents the opinion of Ravvah (Eruvin 99a) and is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 350:1). Significantly, however, the Talmud also records the opinion of Abbaye, who differs and maintains that since the forbidden labor of transferring articles is a matter that may be taken lightly, the Sages instituted safeguards with regard to Rabbinic decrees as well.
9.As long as he takes the water from the air, there is no difficulty. If he takes the water from ten handbreadths or more above the ground, he has taken it from a makom patur. If he takes it from less than ten handbreadths, he has moved an article less than four cubits in the public domain.
10.Based on the principle of l'vud, since the pipe is within three handbreadths of a private domain, it is considered to be an extension of that domain.
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that if the roof is less than thirteen handbreadths above the ground, the principle of l'vud does not apply. This is so because the principle of l'vud cannot cause a space that is part of the public domain to be considered an extension of a private domain (Maggid Mishneh).
11.In this instance, the pipe would be considered to be a carmelit. Transferring from a carmelit to a public domain is forbidden.
12.In this instance, the drainpipe is considered to be a private domain in its own right.
13.Note the distinction between this ruling and Chapter 13, Halachah 4, which describes removing water that is at rest.
14.I.e., to place articles upon it, transferring them from the building. Note, however, the restrictions mentioned in Halachah 7.
15.The space more than ten handbreadths above a public domain is a makom patur. Hence, one may transfer articles to and from it (Chapter 14, Halachah 12).
16.This applies even if a projection is four handbreadths by four handbreadths in area and directly below an open window. Since it is low enough to be used by the passersby in the public domain, it is considered to be a carmelit.
17.The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam, these restrictions apply even when the two projections are not directly above each other.
18.As the Rambam explains, the difficulty is that people from different properties cannot both use a third property which adjoins them - for example (Hilchot Eruvin 3:16), a wall that is four handbreadths wide that separates between two different properties. In particular, there are two conceptions of the Rambam's statements:
a) that of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 353:2), which explains that the two projections extend from two windows belonging to two different individuals who have not made an eruv. Since these individuals are forbidden to transfer articles from one projection to the other by Rabbinical decree, certain restrictions were also placed on using the projections themselves.
b) that of the Ritba, who explains that we are speaking of a wall that possesses only a single window. Nevertheless, the lower projection may be used by the passersby in the public domain. (Although the public domain extends only to ten handbreadths, the people in the public domain have the right to use projections and holes in the wall that are above that height.) When there is only one projection, they refrain from using it, because it will be used by the inhabitants of the house. When, however, there are two projections, the passersby feel free to use the lower one. This in turn causes there to be certain restrictions with regard to the use of both projections on the Sabbath. See the diagram on the opposite page.
Although the Merkevet HaMishneh and others explain that the Ritba's interpretation is more appropriate to the wording chosen by the Rambam, our notes will follow the approach of the Shulchan Aruch, for it is accepted by the subsequent halachic authorities. It also must be noted that Rashi's version of the text of Eruvin 98b differs from that of the Rambam. Accordingly, he and the subsequent Ashkenazic authorities have a different conception of these rulings.
19.Note that Shulchan Aruch HaRav 353:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 353:11 explain that this refers to articles that were kept inside the house. Articles that were left on the projection before the Sabbath may be moved on it. See Hilchot Eruvin 3:18-19.
20.This applies even if the lower projection is not four handbreadths by four handbreadths (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 353:4; Mishnah Berurah 353:12).
21.Note the Mishnah Berurah 353:12, which cites opinions that allow the people whose window opens up to the lower projection to use it when it is less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths.
22.There are no restrictions whatsoever, for neither projection is a domain in its own right.
23.This is permitted, because the projection is considered to be an extension of the window, like a hole in the wall of a private domain (Maggid Mishneh).
24.Since the lower projection is a domain in its own right, it includes the space above it until the heavens, and the entire wall is considered as a part of it. In this instance, since the upper projection is not considered to be a domain in its own right, it is divided into portions. The portion directly opposite the window is considered an extension of the window as in the previous note, but the portion on either side is considered part of the lower projection.
25.If the projection extends over a carmelit and is ten handbreadths high, there are no restrictions regarding the articles that may be used on it (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 353:3).
26.Bringing the articles from the public domain to the home constitutes a forbidden activity. Hence, our Sages instituted this safeguard.
Note the Rashba, who states that if a projection is four handbreadths by four handbreadths, there are no restrictions regarding the articles that may be used on it. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 353:3) quotes the Rambam's ruling, the Ramah states that on a roof or balcony on which a person stands comfortably, all articles may be carried.
27.Our translation follows the version of the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah. Many early printings and manuscripts of the text state "one is permitted...." From the context, the latter version appears more appropriate.
One is forbidden to transfer from one private domain to another private domain when they are separated by a public domain. Nevertheless, since the public domain extends for only ten handbreadths above the ground, the transfer is not being made through a public domain, but rather through a makom patur (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 353:1).
28.See Hilchot Eruvin 1:1-4, which explains that although according to the Torah itself, one may transfer from one private domain to another, our Sages forbade this unless an eruv was constructed.
29.These articles are not breakable. Nevertheless, since the houses are on the same level, it is not difficult to throw from one to the other. Accordingly, our Sages did not feel the need for a safeguard, lest the article fall and the person descend to the public domain and bring them into his home, a private domain.
30.Even if the articles fall into the public domain, they will break. Hence, there is no need to worry that the person may bring them home.
The above restrictions apply only to houses on two sides of a public domain. If two houses are located on two sides of a carmelit, there are no restrictions regarding the type of articles that may be thrown, because there is no possibility of a Torah prohibition being violated (Maggid Mishneh).
31.A cistern that is ten handbreadths deep is considered as a private domain. Were the sand piled around the cistern to be ten handbreadths high, the enclosure would be considered a private domain. Eruvin 99b teaches us a new concept, that the sum of ten handbreadths can be reached by combining the two together.
Hence, there is no difficulty in drawing water from the enclosure to the house, since one is transferring from one private domain to another. Needless to say, it is forbidden to transfer from such an enclosure to the public domain.
32.Since there is no room for a person to pass comfortably between the sand pile and the wall of the house, the space between them is not considered as part of the public domain, but rather as a carmelit (compare to Chapter 14, Halachah 6). Therefore, the space above it is also considered as a carmelit. Thus, one would be transferring from a private domain to a private domain via a carmelit. In this instance (in contrast to Chapter 14, Halachah 14), our Sages allowed such a transfer.
33.When there is room for people to pass between the cistern and the house in a normal manner, the space between them is considered as part of the public domain. Therefore, a person who draws water through the opening to his home would be considered to be transferring from a private domain - the cistern - through a public domain - the area above the space between the sand pile and the home - to one's home - a private domain. See Chapter 13, Halachah 16.
34.Here, the importance of the height of ten handbreadths is not significant because it creates a private domain, but because, as explained in the following note, this will cause the bucket to be more than ten handbreadths above the ground as it passes over the sand pile.
35.I.e., as the bucket is transferred from the enclosure to the home, it passes above the public domain. In this instance, since the sand pile is ten handbreadths high, there is no difficulty, because the space ten handbreadths above the public domain is a makom patur.
36.Since the garbage heap is ten handbreadths high, it constitutes a private domain.
Thus, when water is poured from the house, the water will pass from a private domain through a makom patur - the space more than ten handbreadths above the public domain - to another private domain. This is permitted.
37.This is a Rabbinic decree, instituted for the reason to be explained. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 354:3 states that this restriction applies even if the garbage heap is located in a carmelit.
38.Eruvin 99b cites an example where the Sages considered such a possibility.
39.I.e., we suspect that without looking, the person will follow his usual habit and pour water onto the place where the garbage heap was located previously without noticing that it had been removed.
40.In this halachah as well, most commentaries maintain that the Rambam is referring to a water conduit that passes through a place where a portion of the wall of the courtyard has been taken down. As mentioned above, the Ra'avad interprets Eruvin 12b, the source for this halachah, differently, and therefore objects to the Rambam's ruling.
Significantly, the Merkevet HaMishneh notes that the second clause of the halachah appears to indicate that the conduit breaks through the wall entirely, and it therefore offers a different interpretation of the Rambam's words.
41.Since the conduit is not deep enough to constitute a domain of its own, it would normally be considered part of the domain through which it passes. (See Chapter 14, Halachah 24.) Nevertheless, since this conduit is so wide, it is no longer considered part of the private domain.
42.I.e., does the conduit nullify the courtyard's distinction as a private domain? Significantly, this question is asked in this halachah and not in the previous one. In the previous halachah, although the conduit itself was considered a separate domain, since the opening was less than ten handbreadths, it is considered as an entrance and the enclosure is not nullified. This halachah, however, mentions an opening of more than ten cubits, an aperture which ordinarily nullifies an enclosure.
43.Several explanations have been offered for the Rambam's ruling. Among them: the small portion of the wall which remains juts out over the water. Therefore, the opening to the courtyard is less than ten cubits (Rabbenu Yonason, commenting on Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi). The portions of the wall which remain on either side are considered like poles. As stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 7, it is permitted to carry in a courtyard with poles on either edges of the entrance to the fourth side (an ancient commentary on the Mishneh Torah from Egypt). See also the Or Sameach.
44.For the reasons mentioned above, the wall of the courtyard is an acceptable divider, and thus the courtyard as a whole is still considered to be a private domain. Nevertheless, since the wall was not made for the purpose of distinguishing the water that is outside the courtyard from that which is within the courtyard, a separate partition is required for that purpose (ibid.).
45.When there are no portions jutting out over the water (according to the first interpretation in note 49) or when the entire wall is destroyed (according to the second), the courtyard is considered as enclosed on three sides alone and it is forbidden to carry within.
46.For the entire intent of this partition is to make a distinct separation between the water in the courtyard and the water in the public domain outside of it. [See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishneh (Eruvin 8:6). See also Hilchot Eruvin 3:21-22 where the Rambam mentions a similar requirement.]
47.Generally, a partition must descend within three handbreadths of the ground.
48.For, as mentioned above, the courtyard is a private domain, and carrying within it is permitted. Furthermore, even the water conduit is considered as a private domain according to the Torah itself and its designation as a carmelit is Rabbinic in origin.
49.In contrast to the conduit mentioned in the previous halachot, this conduit does not pass through the courtyards, but merely by their side. Hence, it cannot be considered as part of the courtyard itself.
50.I.e., ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide.
51.The conduit is considered to be a carmelit; the windows, the holes adjacent to a carmelit. One may transfer an article from a carmelit to such holes. This interpretation follows Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of Eruvin 87b. The Ra'avad has a different conception of this passage, and hence objects to the Rambam's rulings.
52.Since the opening is more than three handbreadths away, it is no longer considered to be a hole adjacent to the carmelit, but rather a separate entity. Hence, it is forbidden to transfer from the carmelit to it.
53.I.e., the projections would cause the courtyard to be considered as extending beyond its wall, into the space of the conduit. Therefore, taking water from the conduit would be considered as moving an article within a single private domain.
54.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:8), the Rambam explains that just as it is customary to erect balconies over the public domain, it is also customary to erect balconies over bodies of water.
55.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 355:1) states that the aperture must be four handbreadths by four handbreadths.
56.Since the body of water is considered to be a carmelit. It is forbidden to transfer from a carmelit to a private domain.
57.The partition need not reach the water itself. Because of the principle gud acheit mechitzata, the partition is considered as if it extends into the water, even though it actually ends above its surface. This leniency is granted, because the entire prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
Thus it is considered as if the hole extends into the water itself. Accordingly, we are allowed to draw water through it, because the portion of the body of water beneath it is considered to be an extension of the private domain [the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.)].
58.The partition need not reach the balcony. Because of the principle gud asik mechitzata, the partition is considered as if it extends to the balcony, even though it actually ends below it (ibid.). See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 355:1).
59.Eruvin 88a explains that the leniency of pouring into the body of water has an added dimension of severity. The current of the water will cause the water that has been poured to flow beyond the periphery of the aperture and into the portion of the body of water that is a carmelit. Nevertheless, since the person does not perform this transfer himself, there is no restriction.
60.Since the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, the construction of such a partition is sufficient (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
61.The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's wording is intended to negate an opinion mentioned in Eruvin 88a, which states that even if a courtyard is not four handbreadths by four handbreadths, if its total area is 16 square handbreadths (e.g., it is is eight cubits by two), the restrictions mentioned in this halachah do not apply. Significantly, the Rashba accepts the more lenient view and, in this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 357:1) follows his ruling.
62.Pouring the water into the courtyard does not violate a Torah prohibition, because the courtyard itself is an extension of the home. Although the water flows into the public domain, this is due to the forces of gravity and inertia. Thus, the person's pouring of the water is considered as merely a cause; it is not considered as if he poured the water into the public domain directly. Nevertheless, the Rabbis forbade pouring the water in this manner.
63.A seah is approxinmately 8.25 liters according to Shiurei Torah and 14.4 liters according to the Chazon Ish. The Sages chose this measure because they considered this to be the average quantity of water used by a person every day (the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 8:9).
64.Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which differs and mentions a covering of boards, which most likely is flat.
65.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that the covering will cause the pit to be separated from the public domain. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 357:1 and the Be'ur Halachah, which explain that because of its dome-like cover, people will not walk over it easily. Hence, since its opening faces the private domain, it is considered to be a hole adjacent to the private domain or a makom patur.) Note the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 357) who explains that the reason for the cover is to prevent people's suspicions from being aroused.
Chapter Sixteen
Halacha 1
[The following rules pertain to] a place that is enclosed for purposes other than habitation, and is used as an open space - e.g., gardens and orchards, an open area that is enclosed to protect it, or the like: If the walls surrounding it are ten handbreadths or more high, it is considered to be a private domain with regard to a person's being liable for transferring, throwing, or passing an object from it to the public domain, or from the public domain to it.1
We are not allowed to carry within it, unless its area is equivalent to that necessary to sow two seah [of grain]2 or less. If its area is larger than the space necessary to sow two seah, we may not carry more than four cubits within it, as in a carmelit.3
Halacha 2
Similarly, if a surface is elevated more than ten handbreadths high4 and whose area is equivalent to the space necessary to sow two seah or less, we may carry on the entire surface. If its area exceeds the space necessary to sow two seah, we may carry only within a space of four cubits upon it.5
When a rock in the sea is less than ten handbreadths high, we may carry from it to the sea, and from the sea to it, for the entire area is a carmelit.6 If [the rock] is ten handbreadths high, [different rules apply]. If the size of its area is between7four handbreadths [by four handbreadths]8 and the space necessary to sow two seah, [our Sages forbade] carrying from [the rock] to the sea or from the sea to the rock. [This restriction is a safeguard, instituted,] because we are permitted to carry on the entire [rock].
If its area exceeds the space necessary to sow two seah, although it is a private domain and yet it is forbidden to carry more than four cubits upon it as in a carmelit, it is permitted to carry from it to the sea and from the sea to it. This is an atypical situation. Hence, the Sages did not [include] it [in their] decree.9
Halacha 3
How large is an area in which a seah [of grain can be sown]? Fifty cubits by fifty cubits. Thus, the area in which two seah [of grain can be sown] is 5000 square cubits.10
This measure11 applies whether the area is a square of 70 cubits and a fraction by 70 cubits and a fraction,12or it is a circle, or it is of another shape.13 [If its area equals the sum mentioned,] it is considered as "the area in which two seah [of grain can be sown]."
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when] an area that is enclosed for purposes other than habitation and is large enough for two seah [of grain to be sown within is rectangular in shape]: If its length is twice its width - for example, it is 100 by 50, as was the courtyard of the Sanctuary - carrying is permitted within it.
If, however, [it is more elongated] and its length exceeds twice its width by even one handbreadth,14 we are permitted to carry only four cubits within it.15 [This restriction is imposed because the permission to carry as one may carry] in other courtyards [within] an open space large enough for two seah [of grain to be sown within], is derived from the courtyard of the Sanctuary.16
Halacha 5
[The status of] a place that was originally enclosed for purposes other than habitation [may be changed in the following manner]. A person tears down [a portion of the wall, creating] an open space that is more than ten cubits long and ten handbreadths high17 and then re-encloses that space for the purpose of habitation.18 [After this has been done,] one may carry within the entire enclosure.
Moreover, even if one [did not complete the entire process at once, but rather] tore down a single cubit and re-enclosed that space for the purpose of habitation, tore down another single cubit and re-enclosed that space for the purpose of habitation19 - [when one continues this process until] one re-encloses a space greater than ten cubits one may carry within the entire enclosure, even though it is several millim20 in size.
Halacha 6
When [produce] is sown in the majority of an area that is larger than the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain] that was enclosed for the sake of habitation, the area is considered to be a garden,21 and it is forbidden to carry within it in its totality.22
[The following rules apply when produce] is sown merely within a minor portion [of the enclosure]: If the portion [where the produce] was sown is equal23 to the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain], one may carry within the entire [enclosure].24 If the portion [where the produce] was sown is larger than the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain],25one may not carry within the entire [enclosure].26
When trees are planted in the majority [of the enclosure],27 it is considered to be a courtyard, and one may carry within the entire [enclosure].28
Should [the enclosure] become filled with water,29 [the following rules apply]: If [the water] is fit to be used [by humans],30 [the water] is considered to be like trees,31 and it is permitted to carry within the entire enclosure. If [the water] is not fit to be used [by humans], we may carry only [within a square of] four cubits in [the enclosure].32
Halacha 7
[The following rule applies when a roof is constructed33over a portion of] an area large enough for three seah [of grain to be sown within] which originally had been enclosed for purposes other than habitation: If the roof34 covers [a portion of this area] large enough for a seah [of grain to be sown], we are permitted [to carry throughout the entire enclosure] because of the roof. [The rationale is:] The edge of the roof is considered to descend and close off [the covered portion from the enclosure as a whole].35
[The following rule applies when the wall surrounding an area that was enclosed for purposes other than habitation] was torn down,36 opening the enclosure up to an adjoining courtyard, and [a portion of the wall of the courtyard] opposite [the enclosure] was also torn down: 37 [We are] permitted [to carry] within the courtyard as [we] previously [were], and [we are] forbidden [to carry] within the enclosure as [we] previously [were].38 [The rationale is:] The open space of the courtyard does not cause [carrying] to be permitted [within the enclosure].39
Halacha 8
When [the area of an enclosure] is greater than the space necessary [to sow] two seah [of grain], and one attempts to reduce its size40 by planting trees, its [size is not considered to have been] reduced.41
If one builds a pillar ten [handbreadths] high and three or more [handbreadths] wide at the side of the wall,42 [the size of the enclosure is considered to have been] reduced.43 If, however, [the pillar] is less than three [handbreadths] wide, [the size of the enclosure is not considered to have been] reduced, for an entity that is within three handbreadths of an existing entity is considered to be an extension of the latter entity.44
Similarly, a person who erects a partition that is more than three [handbreadths] removed from the wall [is considered to have] reduced [the size of the enclosure].45 If [the partition] is less than three [handbreadths from the wall], it is of no consequence.46
Halacha 9
If one applies cement to the wall, one reduces [the size of the enclosure],47 although [the cement] is not substantial enough to stand as a separate entity.48
[The following rule applies when an area which is larger than the space required to sow two seah of grain is located on a mound:] If one builds a wall [with the intent of enclosing the area for habitation] at the edge of the mound, it is not of consequence,49 for a partition that is built on top of another partition is of no consequence.50
[The following rule applies when] a wall [that was constructed for the purpose of habitation was built] on top of a wall [that was not constructed for the purpose of habitation,]51 the lower wall sunk within the ground,52 and the upper wall remained: Since the upper wall was constructed for the purpose of dwelling, and it is the only [wall] visible at present, it is [now] considered of consequence and one may carry within the entire [enclosure].
Halacha 10
We may carry only within [a square of] four cubits in a yard53 that is located behind [a group of] houses larger than the space necessary [to sow] two seah [of grain], even when there is an opening from [one of] the homes to [the yard].54
If one opens an entrance [from one of the homes] to [the yard] and then encloses it, [the yard] is considered as enclosed for the purpose of habitation, and we are permitted to carry throughout its total [area].55
Halacha 11
[Permission is granted to carry within] a yard56 that opens to a city at one side and a path that leads to a river on the other [in the following manner]:57 If one erects a post58 at the side near the city, it is permitted to carry within [the yard], from [the yard] to the city,59 and from the city to [the yard].
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] an individual spends the Sabbath in an open valley and constructs a partition60 around his [immediate area]: If [the enclosed area] is the size of the area in which two seah [of grain can be sown] or less, he may carry within the entire [enclosed area]. If [the enclosed area] is larger, he may carry only within [a square of] four cubits.61
The same [rules apply when] two individuals [spend the Sabbath in an open valley]. When, however, three or more Jews62 spend the Sabbath in an open valley [and erect a partition enclosing their immediate area], they are considered a caravan and they are allowed to carry as far as necessary,63 even several millim, provided there is not a space larger than the area [necessary to sow] two seah left vacant without utensils. If, however, [the enclosed area] includes a space larger than the area [necessary to sow] two seah that is left vacant without utensils, and that is of no use to them,64 they are allowed to carry only within [a square of] four cubits within the enclosure.65
A minor66 is not included in [the reckoning of the minimum number of people necessary to compose] a caravan.
Halacha 13
When three people enclose an area large enough for their needs67 and establish this as their place for the Sabbath, [those who remain] are allowed to [continue] carrying within the entire [enclosure]68 despite the fact that one of them dies [on the Sabbath].
When [by contrast] two individuals establish [an enclosed area] larger than the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain] as their place for the Sabbath, they may carry only within four cubits despite the fact that a third person joins them [on the Sabbath]. [The rationale for both decisions is that the ruling] is determined by the manner in which the individuals establish [a site as] their place for the Sabbath [at the commencement of the Sabbath], and not on the number of people who are actually present [on the Sabbath day].69
Halacha 14
[Our Sages did not establish restrictions against carrying in the following instance:] Three areas that are enclosed for purposes other than habitation are located adjacent to each other, and lead70 to each other. The two outer enclosures are wide, while the middle enclosure is narrow. Thus, there are barriers around the outer enclosures on either side. If [three people spend the Sabbath in this place,] one in each of these enclosures, [the three] are considered as a caravan,71 and they are allowed to carry [wherever] necessary.72
If the middle enclosure is wide, while the two outer enclosures are narrow, there are barriers around the middle enclosure on either side. [Thus,] it is considered separate. Therefore, [if three people spend the Sabbath in this place,] one in each of these enclosures, they are not allowed to carry without restriction.73 Instead, each one is allowed to carry within his own enclosure [provided it is smaller74than the space necessary to sow] two seah [of grain].
If a single individual [spends the Sabbath] in each [of the outer enclosures], while two people are in the middle enclosure, or two people [spend the Sabbath] in each [of the outer enclosures], while one person is in the middle enclosure, they are allowed to carry [wherever] necessary.75
Halacha 15
Any partition76 that cannot stand in the face of an ordinary wind is not considered a significant partition.77 [Similarly,] any partition which is not constructed in a lasting manner78 is not considered a significant partition. [Likewise,] a partition constructed only for the purpose of modesty79 is not considered a significant partition.
Any partition that is not ten handbreadths high is not considered to be a complete partition.80 A mound81 five handbreadths high and a partition [on top of it] five handbreadths [high] are combined [and together are considered to be a valid partition].
Halacha 16
Any partition whose open portion exceeds its closed portion is not considered to be a partition.82 If, however, the open portion is equivalent to its closed portion, it is permitted [to carry within the enclosure], provided none of the open portions is larger than ten cubits wide.83 [The rationale for this leniency is that an open space] ten cubits [or less] is considered to be an entrance.84
If, however, this open space [is enclosed by] the frame of an entrance,85, even if it is wider than ten cubits the partition is not considered to be nullified,86 provided the open space does not exceed the closed portion.87
Halacha 17
When does the above apply? When the open spaces are three handbreadths or wider. If, however, the open spaces are each less than three handbreadths,88 the partition is acceptable although the total open space exceeds the space which is enclosed. For whenever there is an opening of less than three handbreadths, the portions separated in this manner are considered as parts of a solid partition.
Halacha 18
What does the above imply? For example, a person makes an enclosure with reeds - as long as there is less than three handbreadths between one reed and the next, the partition is fully acceptable. Similarly, if one makes a partition with ropes, as long as there is less than three handbreadths between one rope and the next [the partition is fully acceptable]. [The above applies] even when the [reeds or ropes] run vertically but not horizontally,89 or horizontally but not vertically.90
The height of the reeds must be at least ten [handbreadths], or there must be ten handbreadths from the earth to the top of the highest rope if one makes an enclosure with rope. For a partition cannot be less than ten handbreadths high. All these measures are part of the oral tradition transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai.91
Halacha 19
Whenever the term "frame of an entrance" is mentioned, it refers to a structure that has at the very least one reed at either side and another reed above them.92 [There is a further leniency:] The height of the posts at the sides must be at least ten handbreadths, but it is not necessary for the reed or other material placed above them to touch them. Even if it is several cubits above them,93 since the posts at the side are ten [handbreadths] high, [the structure] is considered to be a frame of an entrance.
The frame of an entrance mentioned94 must be sturdy enough to hold a door.95 Nevertheless, [the door need not be of a heavy substance;] a door of straw is also sufficient.
Halacha 20
When the upright portions of the sides of an entrance that is structured in the form of an arch are ten [handbreadths] high,96 it is considered to be a "frame of an entrance."
A frame of an entrance that is constructed at the side of a partition97 is not significant, for it is not common for entrances to be constructed at the corner [of a wall],98 but rather in its center.
Halacha 21
A partition may be made from any substances:99 utensils, food stuffs, or human beings.100 Even livestock101 and other animals and birds [may be used for this purpose] provided they are bound102 so that they will not depart.
Halacha 22
A partition that arises on its own accord103 is acceptable. Similarly, a partition that is erected on the Sabbath is considered to be a partition.104 If it is constructed unintentionally, carrying within [the enclosed area] is permitted on that Sabbath,105 provided it is not constructed with the knowledge of those who carry within.
If, however, a person intends that a partition be erected on the Sabbath, he is forbidden to carry within [the enclosure] on that Sabbath, even though the person who actually constructed the partition did not do so with the intent of violating [the Sabbath laws].106 Similarly, if [a partition] is erected with a conscious intent to violate [the Sabbath laws], it is forbidden to carry within [the enclosure]107 even if [the person who erected the structure] did not intend to carry within it.
Halacha 23
It is permitted to erect a human partition on the Sabbath - i.e., people standing next to each other108 - provided that the people whose bodies form the partition do not know that they are standing there for that purpose.109 Nor may the person who desires to use this enclosure be the one who has them stand there.110 Instead, another person should have them stand there without the knowledge of [the person who will benefit from the enclosure].111
Halacha 24
The branches of a tree which hang downward and which reach within three handbreadths of the earth [may serve as an enclosure].112 One should place straw, stubble, and the like between the branches and the leaves, and should tie them to the earth so that they will stand firmly and not flutter in the face of an ordinary wind.113 [When this is done,] one may carry under the entire [tree].
[The above applies] when there is less than the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain beneath the tree]. If, however, the area [below the tree] is larger than that, we are allowed to carry only within four cubits [in this space], since the space beneath [the tree] was enclosed for purposes other than dwelling.114
FOOTNOTES
1.The majority of this chapter is devoted to an explanation of the laws pertaining to a karpef, a large area that is enclosed by four walls, but these walls were not constructed for the purpose of habitation.
Since this area is enclosed by four walls, it is considered a private domain according to Torah law. Therefore, one is liable for transferring articles to and from it. Nevertheless, as the Rambam c ontinues, the Rabbis imposed certain restrictions on carrying within this space for the reasons mentioned below. We are, however, allowed to carry within an area enclosed for the purpose of habitation regardless of how large it is (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 2:5).
2.The size of this space is defined in Halachah 3.
3.Since this is a large space in which there are no inhabitants, it appears to resemble a public domain or a carmelit. Accordingly, the Sages placed certain restrictions on carrying within it, lest one err and carry in the public domain as well (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 358:1).
4.A surface four handbreadths by four handbreadths that is elevated ten handbreadths above the ground is considered to be a private domain.
5.I.e., although it is a private domain according to Torah law, our Sages forbade carrying upon it for the reasons explained in the previous halachah.
6.Although one is allowed to carry from one carmelit to another, one may not carry more than a total of four cubits.
7.If it is less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths, it is a makom patur, and there is no difficulty in carrying from it to the sea or from the sea to it.
8.A rock that is this high above the sea and this size is considered to be a private domain.
9.Although our Sages generally forbade transferring an article from a private domain to a carmelit, since this is a very unusual circumstance they did not include it in their decree.
10.Eruvin 23b identifies the area in which two seah of grain can be sown with the courtyard of the Sanctuary in the desert, which was 100 cubits by 50 cubits.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav explains the significance of this concept. All of the prohibitions against labor on the Sabbath are derived from the Sanctuary. The courtyard of the Sanctuary was a large area which was enclosed for purposes other than habitation. Nevertheless, it was permitted to carry within it. Therefore, when the Sages prohibited carrying in large areas that were enclosed for purposes other than habitation, they used the size of the courtyard of the Sanctuary as the lower limit.
11.Here we see a contrast to the measures of four handbreadths by four handbreadths or four cubits by four cubits, where the intent is a square or a larger area in which such a square could be inscribed.
12.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 2:5), the Rambam states that the square is approximately 70 cubits and five sevenths of a cubit by 70 cubits and five sevenths of a cubit, but that there is no perfect square root for the number 5000.
13.This is obvious from the connection to the courtyard of the Sanctuary, which, as mentioned, was a rectangle and not a square.
14.Note the Rambam's explanation of the difference in opinion between Rabbi Yosse and Rabbi Eliezer, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 2:5). On the basis of this explanation, it would appear that his conception of the Mishnah is closer to that of Tosafot, Eruvin 23b than to that of Rashi (loc. cit.).
15.As in a carmelit.
16.Hence, when such an open area does not resemble the courtyard of the Sanctuary, the leniency does not apply.
17.Once this extent of a wall has been broken down, it is considered as if the entire wall is no longer of significance as indicated in Halachah 16.
18.When one re-encloses the wall, it is considered as if the entire enclosure has been made for the purpose of habitation. Therefore, the area is considered to be an ordinary private domain, and one is allowed to carry within without restriction.
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements on the basis of those of Rashi, Eruvin 24a, which state that the intent to use the enclosure for habitation is not sufficient. There must be a house that opens up to the enclosure.
The Merkevet HaMishneh states that, according to the Rambam, "habitation" does not necessarily mean "human habitation." Therefore, the intent could be to use the enclosure as a corral for animals or the like. Rav Kapach cites the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 2:5), from which it appears that as long as there is a storage vat in the enclosure, it is considered as "enclosed for the purpose of habitation," although it does not contain a house or lead to a house.
Thus according to the Rambam, "everything depends on the person's intention." If he encloses the area for the sake of habitation, he is allowed to carry freely within it. Why is this leniency granted? Because the prohibition against carrying within such an area is Rabbinic in origin, and the Sages enforced this stringency only when a person's intent was not for the sake of habitation, for then the enclosure resembles a public domain. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:2), however, follows Rashi's view, that a house is required within the enclosure or the enclosure must lead to a home.
19.Since the entire enclosure was never opened up for ten cubits at one time, one might assume that the original enclosure was never nullified. Nevertheless, since ultimately a span of ten cubits was constructed, the enclosure is considered as פנים חדשות, "a new entity" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 358:8). Note a parallel ruling in Hilchot Kellim 6:2.
20.A mil is approximately a kilometer in contemporary measure.
21.Although the area was enclosed for the purpose of habitation originally, since it is large and the person sowed produce within the majority of its space, it is clear that he considers it to be a commercial field or garden. It is not common for people to dwell in such a place (Rashi, Eruvin 23b).
22.I.e., one may carry only within a square of four cubits even in the portion of the enclosure where the produce was not sown, because there is no barrier enclosing the area on the side that faces the portion where the produce has been sown (Maggid Mishneh). Alternatively, the portion in which the produce was not sown is considered to be a secondary part of the entire field in which it is forbidden to carry (Rashi, Eruvin 24a).
23.Obviously, if produce was sown in a smaller portion of the enclosure, the same leniency applies. The portion of a field necessary to sow two seah of grain is the upper limit.
24.In such an instance, the portion of the enclosure in which produce was sown is considered like a private garden a person has in his yard.
It must be noted that in this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:10, following the opinion of Rabbenu Asher) is more stringent than the Rambam and forbids carrying an article from the garden to the house.
25.Since the produce was planted in such a large area, it is considered like a commercial garden or field.
26.In this instance, the commentaries quote the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh mentioned above: that the portion of the enclosure facing the side where the produce has been sown is not considered to be enclosed.
The Turei Zahav 358:6 is more lenient and explains that since according to the Torah, one could carry within the entire enclosure, even according to Rabbinic law one should be allowed to carry within the portion where produce was not sown. His opinion is not, however, accepted by the later authorities.
27.The Mishnah Berurah 358:63 states that this ruling applies even when one planted trees throughout the entire enclosure.
28.It is a common practice to plant trees in one's yard for shade. Hence, planting them is not considered to be a sign that one no longer considers the enclosure to be intended for the purpose of habitation.
29.The Rashba states that this applies when the water is ten handbreadths or more deep. If it is shallower than that, there are no restrictions on carrying within the enclosure. Although Sefer HaBatim differs with this interpretation, the Rashba's ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:11).
30.Rashi (Eruvin, loc. cit.) states that the water must be fit to drink. The Rashba and other Sephardic authorities state that it is sufficient that the water be fit for laundry and the like. This appears to be the Rambam's view. Although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes Rashi's view, Sha'ar HaTziyun 358:81 states that one may rely on the Rashba's ruling.
31.For, indeed, it is an advantage to have a source of water near one's home. Hence, the water does not nullify the enclosure (Rashi, loc. cit.).
32.From the gloss of the Magen Avraham 358:15, it appears that if the area in which the water is collected is set off from the enclosure as a whole because its height descends abruptly, we may carry within the remainder of the enclosure.
33.The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 25a, this refers to a roof that is open on all sides, which the watchmen in a garden construct for shade. The Rashba interprets that passage as referring to a roof with two proper walls that are joined at one corner. Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of that passage also indicates that the sides of the covered area are entirely open.
34.Note the Kessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:12), where Rabbi Yosef Karo states that this principle applies even when the roof is sloped. Generally, the principle, "The edge of the roof is considered to descend and close off," does not apply with regard to a sloped roof. Nevertheless, since according to the Torah itself, it is permitted to carry within this enclosure, leniency is allowed. (Compare also to Chapter 17, Halachah 35.)
It must be emphasized that according to the Maggid Mishneh's understanding of the Rambam's rulings (see note 33), this entire matter is extraneous.
35.Thus, the remainder of the enclosure is not larger than the space necessary to sow two seah of grain. Hence, there are no restrictions against carrying within it.
36.This represents the Rambam's interpretation of a passage in Eruvin 25b. Although Rabbenu Chanan'el and Rav Zerachiah HaLevi interpret the passage in this manner, the Ra'avad, Rashi, the Rashba and others follow a slightly different version of the text, and therefore interpret the passage differently. Their interpretation is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:13).
37.According to the Maggid Mishneh (and seemingly, also according to Rabbenu Chanan'el), both openings are no more than ten cubits wide. Otherwise, it would be forbidden to carry within the courtyard.
38.The Maggid Mishneh and others explain that the Rambam is referring to a T-shaped area in which the enclosure opens up to the courtyard, which extends on either side. The enclosure is not considered part of the courtyard, nor is the courtyard considered part of the enclosure, and the laws that originally applied to both areas continue to apply.
According to the Maggid Mishneh, this clause is not a continuation of the first clause of this halachah, but rather a separate concept in its own right. Rav Kapach, however, notes that both the Talmud (Eruvin, loc. cit.) and the Rambam link this and the previous clause together. On this basis, he follows the interpretation of Rabbenu Chanan'el, which states that the unroofed area of the enclosure was originally not larger than the space for two seah of grain to be sown within it. Therefore, we were permitted to carry within it. When, however, the wall connecting it to the courtyard was torn down, the open space was increased and became larger than the space for two seah of grain to be sown within it. Hence, it became forbidden to carry within it.
39.I.e., we do not say that the enclosure becomes considered as an extension of the courtyard.
40.So that one will be able to carry within it.
41.Since it is common to plant trees in such enclosures, even when the trees are ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths by four handbreadths in area (at which point they are considered to be a separate domain in certain contexts), they do not reduce the size of the enclosure (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba).
42.Rashi interprets Eruvin 25a, the source for this halachah, as referring to a pillar of this size, whether it is in the middle of the enclosure or next to the wall. Rashi's interpretation is followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:5).
43.Thus, if the area of the enclosure minus the area of the pillar is less than 5000 square cubits, one is allowed to carry within it.
44.Based on the principle of l'vud, the pillar is not considered to be an independent entity, but rather an extension of the wall. Therefore, although in practice, the open space within the enclosure has been reduced in size, this reduction is not considered as halachically significant.
45.I.e., the size of the enclosure is calculated from the new partitions. If it is less than 5000 square cubits, one may carry within. It must be noted that, with regard to this clause as well, Rashi interprets the Talmudic passage differently, explaining that the new partition is erected to enclose the area for the purpose of habitation. His interpretation is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6).
46.Because of the principle of l'vud.
The Maggid Mishneh questions this ruling on the basis of the first clause of the following halachah, which states, "If one applies cement to the wall, one reduces [the size of the enclosure]." Since the cement reduces the size of the enclosure, even though it actually becomes part of the wall, one could surely assume that a new partition would reduce the size of the wall although it is considered part of the wall because of the principle of l'vud.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that since the partition is halachically insignificant, it cannot take the place of the previous wall. Hence, it is not considered to reduce the size of the enclosure. In contrast, the cement adds on to the size of the previous wall, and the space it takes up is subtracted from the open space of the enclosure.
47.I.e., if the entire space taken up by the cement that is added to the wall is sufficient to reduce the size of the enclosure to less than 5000 square cubits, one may carry within the enclosure.
48.In this instance as well, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam. Based on his interpretation of Eruvin 25a, the cement is counted only when it is substantial enough to stand on it is own if the original wall was removed. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:7) follows the Ra'avad's view, the Mishnah Berurah 358:55 states that the Rambam's opinion may be relied upon in time of need.
49.We are speaking about a mound ten handbreadths high which is considered as set apart as a separate domain. Since the area is being surrounded by a partition that is constructed for the purpose of dwelling, one might think that it would be permissible to carry within the enclosure. Nevertheless, this is forbidden for the reason stated by the Rambam.
50.Since the mound, the original dividing point for the enclosure, is still standing, the new walls built are not considered significant.
51.As mentioned in the previous clause, as long as the original wall is visible, the new wall is of no consequence.
52.And less than ten handbreadths of the original wall extends above the ground (Mishneh Berurah 358:57).
53.Our translation is based on the Mishnah Berurah 359:1, which states that in Talmudic times there would be yards both in front and behind the homes. A yard in front of a home was referred to as a חצר. These were frequently used by the people of that era and mentioned often in the Talmud. A yard behind a home was referred to as a רחבה, a term used comparatively rarely in the Talmud. These yards were used infrequently by people of that era.
54.As apparent from the following clause, this applies when the yard was enclosed before an entrance leading to one of the homes was opened.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 359:1) rules that the restriction mentioned in this law does not apply at present, since it has become customary to use our back yards. Hence, we assume that they were enclosed for the purpose of habitation.
55.Eruvin 24a states that this leniency applies even when a portion of the yard is used as a threshing floor. Since the person enclosed the area after opening an entrance to his home, we assume that the yard's primary purpose is to serve the home.
56.The yard is larger than 5000 square meters and was enclosed for purposes other than habitation (Rashi, Eruvin 24b).
57.The Rambam's decision is based on the description of such a yard in Eruvin 24b.
58.Using a post, a lechi, as a divider is discussed in Chapter 17, Halachot 2 and 9.
As the Rambam mentions there, the post is considered as a fourth wall. In this instance, by erecting the post, one will be considered as erecting a new wall to enclose the yard for the sake of habitation (Rashi, loc. cit.).
59.This refers to a city surrounded by a wall, which is considered to be a private domain.
60.This refers even to an inferior partition, such as those mentioned in Halachah 18. Rashi (Eruvin 16b, the source for this halachah) states that the restrictions of this law apply only when the enclosure uses such an inferior partition. If a proper partition is erected, one may carry within the entire enclosure, since the enclosure was erected for the purpose of habitation. Note the Merkevet HaMishneh, who emphasizes that the Rambam does not accept this leniency.
The wording of the Shulchan Aruch and the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 360:1) appears to concur with Rashi's view. The later authorities also accept his ruling.
61.Since the area is so large and it is enclosed only for a temporary period, the Sages placed restrictions on carrying within it.
It must, however, be emphasized that according to Torah law, the enclosure is considered a private domain. Accordingly, a person who carries from it to a public domain or from a public domain to it is liable (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 360:1; Mishnah Berurah 360:5).
62.With this term, the Rambam excludes a gentile. The Ramah (loc. cit.) also rules that a gentile may not be included in a caravan.
63.According to Torah law, such an area is a private domain. The Rabbis did not place any restrictions upon it, because it has - albeit temporarily - been enclosed for the purpose of habitation.
64.See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 360:2, which mentions that it is acceptable if the land is used for pasture.
65.Since the enclosure includes such a large empty space, our Sages forbade carrying within it.
Based on the Mordechai, the Shulchan Aruch mentions a further leniency: If three people spend the Sabbath in an enclosure whose area is less than 18,000 square cubits, they are allowed to carry without restriction. The rationale is: Each individual is granted 5000 square cubits. Thus, there are less than 5000 square cubits that are not accounted for. This leniency is not, however, accepted by the other authorities.
66.The Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 1:10) does not resolve the question whether or not to count a child as a member of the caravan. In his Beit Yosef (loc. cit.), Rav Yosef Karo questions the Rambam's decision, for generally we follow the rule that when a doubt exists pertaining to a question of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view should be followed. Accordingly, he does not mention the matter in his Shulchan Aruch. The Ramah cites the Rambam's view, but prefaces it with the phrase "There are those who maintain," which implies that the opinion cited is not accepted universally.
67.I.e., greater than 5000 square cubits.
68.This leniency applies only on the Sabbath on which the person dies. On the following Sabbath, they are forbidden to carry unless they are joined by a third individual.
69.See a further expression of this principle in Hilchot Eruvin 3:25.
70.I.e., the middle enclosure does not have a wall, but is totally open on either side (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 360:3). The Shulchan Aruch, however, follows the interpretation of the Ritba, who requires the walls of the narrow courtyard to enter into the space of the wider courtyard. The Rambam, however, does not appear to make such a requirement.
71.Since the individuals in each of the outer courtyards are considered as sharing the space of the middle courtyard.
72.I.e., they may carry freely from one enclosure to another. Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which states that they must make an eruv to join their respective enclosures together. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch mentions a more restrictive opinion, which allows the individuals to carry freely only when the outer enclosures are less than 5000 square cubits in size.
73.I.e., the outer enclosures are considered to be distinct entities without any connection to each other. Thus it is not considered as if three people are spending the Sabbath in the same place.
74.The bracketed additions are based on the commentary of Rashi (Eruvin 93a, the source for this halachah) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).
75.In both of these instances, three individuals share a single portion of space. Therefore, they are allowed to carry freely from one enclosure to another.
76.In this halachah, the Rambam begins to describe the rules that govern the walls that enclose a private domain. The concepts he mentions are also relevant to the laws of sukkah and other contexts within Jewish law.
77.I.e., it is as if the partition were not there. See notes below.
Rashi, Sukkah 24b, states that this applies not only when the wall will fall because of the wind, but also to a cloth wall that will blow back and forth. From Halachah 24, it appears that this ruling is also accepted by the Rambam. It is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:1 and 630:10).
78.Our translation follows Rabbenu Chanan'el's text of Eruvin 26a. According to this interpretation, our Sages are teaching us that a partition must be constructed in a firm and sturdy fashion. (See also the interpretation of the term in the Aruch.) See also Halachah 12 and notes.
The Ra'avad, Rashi, and others follow a different text of the Talmud, which reads כל מחיצה העשויה לנח ת. According to this interpretation, this refers to a partition erected for storage purposes and not for people to dwell within. This latter view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:1).
79.The commentaries on Eruvin (loc. cit.) interpret this as a temporary partition that builders construct for shade. (Rav Kapach, however, cites interpretations of the Geonim that interpret the term "for the sake of modesty" literally, to change one's clothes behind.)
Thus, all three partitions mentioned in this halachah share the same drawback; they are not constructed in a lasting or sturdy manner.
In his gloss on this halachah, the Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba, who mentions that since all these partitions are valid according to Torah law, the expression "they are not partitions" must be interpreted as follows: They are not partitions constructed for the purpose of habitation. Therefore, if an area larger than 5000 square cubits is enclosed with such a partition, it is forbidden to carry within. If, however, an area less than 5000 square cubits is enclosed by such a partition, one may carry within. This opinion is quoted by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).
The Lechem Mishneh, the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 362) and others maintain that the Rambam does not accept the Rashba's view. Kinat Eliyahu, however, notes that the fact that the Rambam mentions these laws directly after the laws concerning a karpef may have been intended to allude to the Rashba's concept.
80.The Maggid Mishneh interprets the phrase "it is not a complete partition" to mean: It is not a partition significant enough to cause an enclosure to be considered to be a private domain. It may, however, cause an enclosure to be considered to be a carmelit.
81.Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:2).
See also the interpretation of Rabbenu Chanan'el to Eruvin 93b, which interprets it as a "rock." From a halachic perspective, these interpretations are not mutually exclusive. See Chapter 15, Halachah 9.
82.I.e., if a wall includes open spaces, the area that is open may not exceed the area that is enclosed. As mentioned in the following halachah, this refers to open spaces that are larger than three handbreadths wide. As the Rambam states in Halachah 18, this refers to spaces in the horizontal as well as the vertical portion of the wall.
83.I.e., when there is an open space larger than ten cubits wide, the entire partition is nullified.
84.As long as the opening is ten cubits wide or less, there is no need to enclose it with a frame of an entrance. It is commonplace for a wall to have an entrance that is less than ten cubits wide without a frame.
85.The Rambam explains the structure of a frame of an entrance (tzurat hapetach) in Halachah 19.
86.I.e., by erecting the frame of an entrance, one enables a partition to be considered acceptable despite the fact that it has an opening that is larger than ten cubits.
87.This ruling represents a point of difference between the Rambam and most other authorities. According to the Rambam, although the frame of an entrance enables an opening larger than ten cubits to be accepted, the opening is still considered an open space. Accordingly, if the total amount of open space on any one side of a partition exceeds the closed space, the partition is unacceptable, even though portions of the open space possess a frame of an entrance.
Many authorities (e.g., the Rashba and Tosafot, Eruvin 11a) differ and maintain that once a frame of an entrance is constructed, the space below it is deemed closed and should be considered as such when calculating whether the enclosed portion of a partition exceeds its open area. The opinion of these authorities is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:10). Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 362:19 and the Mishnah Berurah 362:59 state that it is proper to be stringent and follow the Rambam's ruling.
Rabbenu Asher cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 1:9) and Kilayim 4:2 as the source for the Rambam's ruling. (See also Hilchot Shofar V'Sukkah V'Lulav 4:12, where the Rambam accepts a more lenient view regarding the walls of a sukkah. Note also the glosses of the Kessef Mishneh and the Maggid Mishneh there.)
See also the commentary of Rav Kapach, who advances an interpretation of the Rambam's statements here and in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:8) that maintains that the Rambam follows the view advanced by the Rashba. Even those who reject this interpretation in most instances are forced to accept it with regard to the third side of an alley, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 3. (Note also Chapter 17, Halachah 27.)
The difference between the Rambam's ruling and that of the other authorities is particularly relevant in contemporary communities that permit carrying because of an eruv. Most of these communities are enclosed, not by a proper wall, but by a series of "frames of an entrance" constructed using telephone poles and the like. According to the Rambam, these enclosures are not acceptable. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why the carefully observant refrain from carrying in these communities.
88.More precisely, the same ruling applies if some of the spaces are wider than three handbreadths, as long as the size of the total of the open spaces wider than three handbreadths does not exceed the remainder of the partition.
89.As the Rambam continues, a partition of reeds will generally be constructed by implanting them upright in the ground, one near the other. As long as the reeds are not three handbreadths apart, the partition is acceptable even if there are no reeds that run horizontally.
90.Generally, a partition of ropes will be constructed by stretching them from one post to another. As long as the ropes are not three handbreadths apart, the partition is acceptable, even if there are no ropes that run vertically.
91.In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam defines the Hebrew term halachah l'Mosheh miSinai as referring to laws that have no obvious source in the Written Torah, yet have been accepted throughout the centuries as an integral part of the Torah tradition.
92.As the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:11) emphasizes, the reed must be placed exactly above the two side posts. It is not acceptable for it to be attached to their sides, for then it does not resemble the lintel of a doorway.
93.In his gloss on this halachah, Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that this is acceptable because of the principle gud asik - i.e., the posts at the side are considered to be extended until they reach the crossbar. Based on this rationale, it follows that the two posts need not be of the same height. Even if one is higher than the other, they may still be considered as part of the same frame of an entrance. (Note also the application of this principle in Hilchot Sukkah 4:2.)
94.According to the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), this refers to the posts on the side. The crossbar above need not be sturdy at all.
95.The Rambam's decision is based on Eruvin 11b. His ruling, however, has aroused questions. The passage cited also mentions opinions that require the post to have a hinge for the door on at least one side. Although there are authorities who also accept the latter requirement, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the Rambam's view.
96.I.e., the circular portion of the arch is not counted in the calculation of the entrance's height.
The commentaries draw attention to the Rambam's decision in Hilchot Mezuzah 6:4, where he also requires an arched doorway to have doorposts ten handbreadths high in addition to the arch, for the doorway to need a mezuzah. There is, however, a difference - and somewhat of a divergence - between the rationales the Rambam gives in both sources.
97.I.e., there is an opening of more than ten cubits at the corner where two walls would merge if they were continued. Even if one constructs a frame of an entrance at this opening, it is not acceptable. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 9:3.)
It must be noted that in their commentaries on Eruvin 11b, the source for this halachah, Rashi and the Rashba interpret the passage as referring, not to an entrance constructed at the corner of a wall, but to a lintel, projecting from the side of a doorpost. As mentioned in Halachah 19, the requirement for a frame of an entrance is for the lintel to be above the door posts and not projecting from their sides (Kessef Mishneh).
98.Note Chapter 17, Halachah 35, which mentions another law based on this same principle.
99.See parallels in Chapter 17, Halachah 12, and Hilchot Sukkah 4:16.
100.Unlike the animals that the Rambam proceeds to mention, a human being need not be bound, as is obvious from Halachah 23.
101.If the animal is standing and there are three handbreadths b etween the animal's body and the ground, that space must be filled with other substances (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 362:12).
102.Note that in Hilchot Sukkot (loc. cit.), the Rambam does not require that animals be bound when they serve as part of a wall. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:11) states that the animals must be bound even when used for the purpose of a sukkah's wall.
103.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:3) explains this as referring to a structure that was not built with the intent of enclosing an area, but accomplished that purpose nonetheless.
104.I.e., in all instances, the partition is considered valid, and the enclosure is considered a private domain. Therefore, a person who transfers an article into this enclosure from the public domain is liable. Our Sages, however, placed certain restrictions on carrying within such an enclosure, as the Rambam continues to explain.
105.I.e., the person who constructed the partition did so without knowing that it was the Sabbath or without knowing that it is forbidden to build on the Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah 362:18).
106.According to the Chemed Mosheh, this refers to a situation in which one person had another construct an enclosure for the former to carry within on the Sabbath. Although the person who actually constructed the enclosure did not intend to violate the Sabbath laws, the person for whom he performed the labor desired that such a violation take place. Hence, that person is prohibited from carrying within. This explanation resolves the question raised by the Rashba that is quoted by the Maggid Mishneh.
107.As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 6, Halachah 23, when a Jew intentionally performs a forbidden labor on the Sabbath, it is forbidden for other Jews to benefit from that labor on that Sabbath itself. The person who performed the labor, by contrast, is never permitted to benefit from it. Thus, in this instance, he would be forbidden from ever carrying within this enclosure on the Sabbath. (See Or Sameach.)
Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which states that if a partition had been standing before the Sabbath, it was removed on the Sabbath and then reconstructed on the Sabbath, it is permitted to carry within the enclosure. This applies even if the partition was rebuilt intentionally on the Sabbath. The Mishnah Berurah 362:26, however, cites authorities that do not accept this leniency.
108.I.e., within three handbreadths of each other (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 362:5). Note the Bayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 362) and the Be'ur Halachah 362, which question why the people may not be even further separated.
109.Although constructing a partition of this nature is not considered as building, it is still forbidden for the people who stand there to have in mind that their bodies serve as an enclosure, lest they come to treat the Sabbath prohibitions lightly (Mishnah Berurah 362:39).
110.The Rashba differs with this ruling and maintains that there is no difficulty if the person who desires to use the enclosure has the people stand there. According to his opinion, the only difficulty is when the people forming the partition have such an intent. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:7) prefaces the quotation of the Rambam's ruling with the words, "There is one who says," which implies that it is not accepted by all. Similarly, the later authorities do not obligate compliance with this stringency.
Significantly, when discussing the use of human beings as part of the wall of a sukkah on the holiday, the Rambam (Hilchot Sukkah 4:16) states that the people serving as the wall may not know that their bodies are being used in that capacity, but the person sitting in the sukkah may have that intent.
111.Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 362:7), who states that the leniency of using human beings to form an enclosure on the Sabbath should be employed only in a very extreme situation. He maintains that it is preferable to have a child bring in an article from the public domain without making an enclosure, rather than to have an adult carry the article in within an enclosure consisting of human beings. Although the later authorities raise questions regarding employing a child for this purpose, they accept the Ramah's hesitation about using an enclosure of human bodies.
112.For this rule to apply, there must be a place four handbreadths by four handbreadths in area and ten handbreadths high beneath the tree. Otherwise, the space is considered as a carmelit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 362:2; Mishnah Berurah 362:5).
113.See Halachah 15. (See also Hilchot Sukkah 4:5, where the Rambam mentions similar concepts with regard to using a tree as a wall for a sukkah.)
114.As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, when an area was enclosed for purposes other than habitation, one may not carry within it, if it is larger than the space necessary to sow two seah of grain - i.e., 5000 square cubits.
Chapter Seventeen
Halacha 1
A lane with three walls is called a closed lane.1 In contrast, a lane that has only two walls, one opposite the other, and thus passersby enter from one end and leave from the other, is referred to as an open lane.2
Halacha 2
What must be done to allow people to carry within a closed lane?3 We should erect one pole4 at the fourth side or extend a beam above it;5 this is sufficient.6 The beam or the pole is considered to have enclosed the fourth side, making it [equivalent to] a private domain.7 Thus, carrying is permitted within it.
According to Torah law, one is permitted to carry [within an area enclosed] by three partitions.8 [The requirement to enclose the] fourth side is Rabbinic [in origin]. Therefore, it is sufficient to erect a pole or a beam.
Halacha 3
What must be done to allow people to carry within an open lane? A frame of an entrance must be erected at one side and either a pole or a beam must be erected at the other side.9
An L-shaped10 lane is governed by the same rules as an open lane.11
Halacha 4
When a lane is level, but descends on an incline to the public domain, or if its entrance to the public domain is level but it itself descends on an incline,12 it does not require either a pole or a beam, for it is clearly distinct from the public domain.13
Halacha 5
When one side of a lane ends at the sea and the other side ends at a public garbage dump, there is no need for [further measures to enable carrying to be permitted].14
[Leniency is granted,] because a public garbage dump is unlikely to be removed,15 and we do not suspect that the sea will wash up mud and rocks [which will dry out and create a surface level with that of the lane].16
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply to] an open lane that ends in the middle of a yard17 belonging to many different people: If [the end of the lane] is not opposite the entrance to the yard,18 it is considered to be closed and does not require any further measures at the side of the yard. If, however, it ends at the sides of the yard, it is forbidden [to carry within the lane].19
Moreover, if the yard belongs to a single individual, it is forbidden [to carry within the lane] even if the lane leads into the middle of the yard. [The rationale for this prohibition is that] at times, [the owner] may build on one of the sides of the yard. [After these improvements have been made,] it is possible that the lane will end at the side of the yard.
Halacha 7
Permission [to carry within] a lane because a pole or a beam was erected is granted only when [the following conditions are met]:20
[several] houses and courtyards open into it;21
it is four cubits long or more;22 and
its length exceeds its width.
If, however, the length23 and the width24 of a lane are equal, it is considered to be a courtyard, and permission [to carry within is granted] only [when one erects] two poles - there is no minimum requirement with regard to their width - one at each of its sides, or one erects a barrier four handbreadths [wide]25 at one side.26
Halacha 8
When the length27 of a courtyard exceeds its width, it is considered to be a lane, and [carrying within it] is permitted [only when one erects] a pole or a beam.
[When several] houses and courtyards28 do not open into a lane - e.g., only one house or one courtyard does - and similarly, [when] a lane is not four cubits long, permission [to carry within is granted] only [when one erects] two poles29 or a barrier (more than)30 four handbreadths [wide].
Halacha 9
When a lane is not three handbreadths wide,31 one may carry throughout it; it does not require either a pole or a beam. [This leniency is granted because] an opening less than three handbreadths wide is considered to be an extension of the existing wall.32
When a beam is erected over a lane to make it possible for people to carry within as in a private domain, [the lane is not considered to be a private domain, and] a person who throws an article from it to the public domain or from the public domain into it is not liable. The beam is [there merely] to create a distinction.33
When, by contrast, a pole is erected [to make it possible for people to carry], [the lane is a private domain, and] a person who throws an article from it to the public domain or from the public domain into it, is liable. The pole is considered to be a wall on the fourth side.34
Halacha 10
How is it possible to [make it permissible for people to carry] between two walls of the public domain through which people [frequently] pass? One makes gates on both sides,35 causing the space between them to be considered to be a private domain.36
[In practice,] the gates need not be locked at night, but they must be fit to lock.37 If they are sunken in the earth, [the earth must be] cleared away and [the gates] adjusted so that they can be locked. The frame of an entrance,38 a pole, or a beam are not sufficient to make it possible for people to carry within a public domain.39
Halacha 11
It is permissible to carry in [the portion of] the lane that is under the beam or opposite the pole.40 When does the above apply? When these structures are constructed near a public domain.
When, by contrast, [a lane is] near a carmelit, it is forbidden to carry in [the portion of] the lane that is under the beam or opposite the pole,41 unless one erects another pole to permit carrying within the entrance.42
[The rationale for this stringency is that according to the Torah, a carmelit is a makom patur. Therefore, when] this entity, [the space opposite the pole or under the beam, which is also a makom patur, is adjacent] to an entity of this type, [the carmelit,] its presence is deemed significant [and it is considered to be an extension of the carmelit].43
Halacha 12
A pole may be constructed employing any substance, even a living entity,44 or even an object from which we are forbidden to benefit. [For example, if] a false deity or a tree that is worshiped45 is employed as a pole, it is acceptable.46 [The rationale for this ruling is that] there is no minimum requirement regarding the width of a pole.
The height of the pole may not be less than ten handbreadths.47 There is not, however, a minimum requirement for its width and breadth.
Halacha 13
A beam may be constructed employing any substance, with the exception of a tree that has been worshiped.48 [The latter restriction is applied] because there is a minimum measure for the width of a beam, and a tree that has been worshiped is forbidden to be used whenever there is a minimum measure specified.
The width of a beam may be no less than a handbreadth;49 there is, however, no minimum measure for its thickness. Nevertheless, it must be sturdy enough50 to hold a brick51 that is one and a half handbreadths by three handbreadths.52 The supports53 for the beam must be sturdy enough to hold the beam and a brick of the size mentioned above.54
Halacha 14
Of what size may the entrance of a lane be for a pole or a beam to be sufficient to allow [people to carry within]? Its height may not be less than ten handbreadths,55 nor more than twenty cubits.56 Its width may not be more than ten cubits.57
[The above applies] when [the opening] is not built with a frame of an entrance.58 If, however, [the opening] is built with the frame of an entrance, even if it is 100 cubits high, less than ten [handbreadths high],59 or more than 100 cubits wide, it is permissible [to carry within].60
Halacha 15
Similarly, if the beam over a lane is ornamented or it has designs61 so that everyone looks at it, it is acceptable even if it is more than 20 cubits high.62 A beam serves as a distinguishing factor. Therefore, [generally,] if it is higher than 20 cubits, [it is not acceptable because] it will not be noticed.63 If, however, it is ornamented or if it has designs - since it attracts attention, it serves as a distinguishing factor.
Halacha 16
When the height of a lane, from the earth until the bottom of the beam is 20 cubits, it is acceptable even though the width of the beam extends higher than 20 [cubits above the ground.]
If the lane is more than 20 cubits high and one desires to reduce its height by placing a beam lower than it,64 the beam must be a handbreadth wide. If the lane is less than ten handbreadths high, one should dig out a portion that is four cubits by four cubits65 in area, deep enough so that [the walls of the lane will be] a full ten handbreadths [in height].
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when] an opening is made in the side of a lane,66 near its front:67 If a portion of the wall four handbreadths wide touching the front [wall] remains standing, it is permissible [to carry within the lane],68 provided the opening is not more than ten cubits wide.69
If, however, a portion of the wall four handbreadths wide does not remain, it is forbidden [to carry within the lane]70 unless the opening is less than three handbreadths. [Any opening] less than three handbreadths [is considered to be closed,] based on the principle of l'vud.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when] a lane opens up entirely71 to a courtyard and the courtyard opens up on the opposite side72 to the public domain: it is forbidden [to carry within], because it is like an open lane. It is [however] permissible to carry within the courtyard, for although many people pass through a courtyard - entering from this side and departing from the other - it is still considered a private domain.73
Halacha 19
[The following rules apply when] there are several paths leading [from the public domain] to a lane, [merging with it] at different points.74 Although the entrances are not opposite one another, since they all lead to the public domain, every one is considered to be an open lane.75
What must be done [to make it possible to carry within this lane]? A frame of an entrance should be constructed for each of the paths at one end.76 Similarly, [a frame of an entrance should be constructed] at the main entrance [of the lane to the public domain]. At the other side of all the paths, one should construct a pole or a beam.
Halacha 20
When one of the walls of a lane [that leads to the public domain] is long and the other is short,77 one should place the beam near the shorter wall.78
When a pole79 is constructed in the midst of a lane, it is permissible to carry within the inner portion of the lane80 that is behind the pole.81 It is, however, forbidden [to carry] in the outer portion of the lane that is beyond the pole.
Halacha 21
When a lane is twenty cubits wide, [it is possible to enable people to carry within by erecting a pole or a board in the following manner]:82 One may build a wall ten handbreadths high and four cubits long - the latter being the minimum length of a lane - and place [the wall perpendicularly] in the middle [of the entrance]. [As such,] it is as if there are two lanes, each with an entrance of ten cubits.83
Alternatively, one may leave a space of two cubits from [one side of the lane] and set up a wall three cubits long, and [similarly,] leave a space of two cubits [from the other side of the lane] and set up a wall three cubits long. Thus, the opening of the lane will be ten cubits wide,84 and the sides will be considered to be closed, because the enclosed portions exceed the open portions.85
Halacha 22
A pole that projects outward from the wall of the lane is acceptable.86 [Similarly,] a pole that is standing [at the side of the entrance to a lane] without having been placed there [intentionally]87 is acceptable, provided one has the intent of relying on it before [the commencement of] the Sabbath.88
When a pole can be seen from the inside of a lane but cannot be seen from the outside,89 or conversely, when it can be seen from the outside, but from within the lane appears flush with the wall, it is acceptable as a pole.90
A pole that is lifted three handbreadths above the ground91 or that is more than three handbreadths away from the wall,92 is not at all significant. Anything less than three handbreadths is, however, acceptable, based on the principle of l'vud.
When a pole is very wide - whether its width is less than or equal to half the width of the lane, it is acceptable and is considered to be a pole. If, however, [its width] exceeds half the width of the lane, [it is considered to be a wall and this side is considered to be enclosed], because the enclosed portion exceeds the open portion.93
Halacha 23
When a mat is spread over a beam, the beam's [function in making it possible to carry within the lane] is nullified, for it is no longer conspicuous.94 [It is possible, however, for it still to be possible to carry within the lane, provided the mat reaches within three handbreadths of the ground.95] If the mat is three handbreadths or more from the ground, it is not considered to be a wall [and carrying is forbidden within the lane].
If one implants two spikes into the front of the wall96 of a lane and places a beam upon them, one's actions are of no significance [and it is forbidden to carry within the lane]. For a beam [to be significant, it] must be positioned over a lane and not next to it.97
Halacha 24
[The following rules apply when] a beam extends outward from one wall of a lane,98 but does not reach the second wall, or if one beam extends outward from one wall and another beam extends outward from the second wall: If they reach within three [handbreadths] of each other, there is no need to bring another beam.99 If there is more than three handbreadths between them, one must bring another beam.
Halacha 25
Similarly, when two beams are positioned parallel to each other and neither of them is able to support a brick [of the required size],100 there is no need to bring another beam if the two beams can support the brick together.101
If one is on a higher plane and the other is on a lower plane, we see the upper one as if it were lower and the lower one as if it were raised [and thus the two are regarded as though they were on the same plane].102 [This applies] provided the upper board is not higher than 20 cubits high,103 the lower board is not less than ten handbreadths high104 and there would be less than three handbreadths between the two if the upper one were lowered and the lower one were raised until they were parallel to each other on the same plane.105
Halacha 26
If the beam is crooked, we consider it as if it were straight. If it is rounded,106 we consider it as if it were linear. Thus, if its circumference is three handbreadths, it is a handbreadth in diameter.107
[The following rules apply when] a beam is located in the midst of a lane, but because it is crooked, a portion projects outside the lane, or because it is crooked, a portion projects above twenty [cubits] or below ten [handbreadths] high: We consider the distance that would remain between the two ends of the beam were the crooked portion [which projects outside the desired area] to be removed:108 If less than three handbreadths remain, there is no need to bring another beam. If [more remain], another beam is required.
Halacha 27
When eight walls are positioned at the corners [of a square around] a well,109 two attached [perpendicularly] at each corner, they are considered to be an enclosure. Even though [the length of the] open portion exceeds that of the walls on each of the sides, since [there are walls] standing at all of the corners, it is permitted to draw water from the well and permit an animal to drink.110
How high must each of these walls be? Ten handbreadths. The walls must each be six handbreadths wide,111 and there must be space between each wall for two teams - each consisting of four cattle - one entering and one departing. This measure is not more than thirteen and one third cubits.112
Halacha 28
[It is not always necessary for this space to have actual walls positioned at its corners]. If at one of the corners, or at all four of the corners, there is positioned a large stone, a tree, a mound whose incline is more than ten handbreadths within four cubits, or a bundle of reeds, [the following rules apply]: We see whether the article in question has a section one cubit long on either side that is ten handbreadths high when divided [at the corner].113 [If this is true,] it is considered to be two walls positioned at a corner.
When five reeds are erected [around the corner of such a square] with less than three [handbreadths] between each pair of them,114 [the space between them is considered to be closed].115 If there are six handbreadths on one side and six handbreadths on the other side, they are considered to be two walls positioned at a corner.
Halacha 29
It is permissible to bring these four corners closer to the well, provided there is still enough space for the majority of a cow's body to be within these walls when it is drinking.116 Although one does not hold the head of the animal together with the vessel from which it is drinking, since there is space for the head [of a cow] and the majority [of its body] within [the square], it is permitted.
[If the square is this size,] it is permissible even for a camel117 [to use] it. If [the square] is smaller, it is forbidden to draw water within [the square], even for a kid whose entire body can enter within.
It is permissible to separate [the walls] from the well as far as one desires, provided that one adds straight walls on every side,118 so that there will never be more than thirteen and one third cubits between each of the two walls.
Halacha 30
[The use of] such walls was permitted only in Eretz Yisrael, and for the sake of the herds119 of the festive pilgrims. Similarly, [this leniency] was granted only with regard to a fresh-water well120 that belongs to the public.121.
In contrast, should a person desire to drink, he should descend to the well and drink, or should make a barrier ten handbreadths high around the wall,122 stand within it, draw water, and drink. If the well is very wide and a man is unable to climb down it, he may draw water and drink within [a structure of] corner walls [as described above].
Halacha 31
Similarly, it is forbidden to draw water from a cistern that belongs to the public or from a well that belongs to a private individual - even in Eretz Yisrael - unless one constructs a barrier123 ten handbreadths high around them.
Halacha 32
When a person was drawing [water] for his animal that is standing between the walls [of the abovementioned enclosure], he may draw water and place it before [the animal] in the vessel [with which it was drawn].
If the [animal was in] a stall ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths [by four handbreadths] wide, whose front portion projected within such walls, the person should not draw water and place [the vessel] before [the animal].124 [This restriction was instituted] lest the stall be broken and the person carry the bucket into the stall, and from the stall [bring it] to the ground of the public domain.125 Instead, he should draw water, pour it before [his animal], who will drink it itself.
Halacha 33
When a person throws [an article] from the public domain into [a space surrounded by] walls of this nature, he is liable. Since there is an actual wall that is ten [handbreadths] high and more than four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] in area in every corner, the square is a definitive and distinct entity.126 Hence, the entire [enclosure] is considered to be a private domain.127
[The above applies] even [were such a structure to be built] in a valley where there is no well, for there is a wall on each side of each corner [of the enclosure]. Even if many people pass through the enclosure, the walls are not considered to have been nullified.128[Instead, the enclosure] is considered to be like a courtyard through which many people pass. [All agree that] a person who throws [an object] into [such a courtyard] is liable.129If there is a well located within such an enclosure, [our Sages relaxed some of their restrictions and] permitted drawing water for an animal.
Halacha 34
When one end of a courtyard enters between the walls of the abovementioned enclosure, it is permitted to carry from [the courtyard] into the enclosure and from the enclosure into [the courtyard].130 When [portions of] two courtyards enter between the walls of the abovementioned enclosure, it is forbidden to carry [from the enclosure to the courtyards and from the courtyard to the enclosure] unless an eruv is made.131
If the well dries up on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry between the walls [of the enclosure].132 [Our Sages133] considered these walls to be an acceptable enclosure to allow [people] to carry within, only because of the water. If the well begins to flow with water on the Sabbath,134 it is permitted to carry within [the enclosure], for an enclosure that is established on the Sabbath is an [acceptable] enclosure.135
When the beam or pole [used to permit people to carry within] a lane is removed on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry within,136 even if it opens up to a carmelit.137
Halacha 35
When an excedra138 is constructed in an open area, it is permitted to carry within its entire space although it has only three walls and a roof.139 We consider it to be as though the edge of the roof descends and closes off the fourth side.140 A person who throws an article into it from the public domain is not liable.141 It is as if one throws an article into a closed lane that possesses a roof.
When the corner of a house or a courtyard is broken and an opening of ten cubits is created, it is forbidden to carry within it at all. Although [generally] whenever an opening is ten cubits or less we consider it to be an entrance,142 [no leniency is granted in this instance, because] an entrance is not made in a corner.143
Should there be a board extending across the length of the opening, it is considered as if it descends and closes the opening.144 Thus, it is permitted to carry within the entire area. [This leniency applies] provided [the beams] are not [constructed at] an angle.145
Halacha 36
The term "fingerbreadth" when used as a measurement, universally refers to the width of a thumb.146 A handbreadth is the size of four fingerbreadths.147 Whenever the term "cubit" is used whether with regard to the laws of the Sabbath, a sukkah, or the prohibition of growing mixed species, it refers to a cubit of six handbreadths.148
There are times when we measure a cubit as six handbreadths pressed one to the other, and other occasions when we consider the handbreadths as amply spaced one from the other.149 In both instances, the intent is that this lead to a more stringent ruling.
For example, the length of a lane [is required to be a minimum of] four cubits. These are measured in amply spaced cubits. The height [of a lane may not exceed] twenty cubits. These are measured in constricted cubits. Similarly, the length of an opening [may not exceed] ten cubits. These are measured in constricted cubits. Similar principles apply regarding the laws of a sukkah and the prohibition of growing mixed species.
FOOTNOTES
1.In Talmudic times, it was not customary that homes open to streets, as is the practice today. Instead, several homes would open up to a single courtyard. These courtyards would open up to paths or lanes that led to the public marketplaces and the thoroughfares of the towns. Sometimes, these paths or lanes would end in a cul-de- sac, and on other occasions they would lead from one thoroughfare to another.
2.This refers to a lane leading from one marketplace or thoroughfare to another. Needless to say, the lane must be less than sixteen cubits wide. If it is sixteen cubits wide, it would be deemed as a public domain according to the Rambam, as mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 1.
3.This question applies within a city that is not surrounded by an eruv. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:2), a lane with three walls is considered to be a carmelit. Thus according to the Torah itself, such an area is regarded as a makom patur, and one is permitted to carry within it. The Rabbis nevertheless forbade carrying within such an area, unless a person constructed either of the following structures: a lechi - a pole constructed at one of the corners of the fourth side - or a korah - a beam constructed across the entrance. (See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh.)
4.The dimensions required for a pole and a beam are mentioned in Halachot 12 and 13. When a pole is constructed at the corner of the fourth side of the lane, the lane is considered to be enclosed and thus is viewed as a private domain. (See Halachah 9 of this chapter and Chapter 14, Halachah 1.)
5.As explained in Halachah 9, extending a beam over the lane is a Rabbinic measure that makes a distinction between such a lane and a lane that is not enclosed at all. Because of this distinction, the Rabbinic prohibition against carrying in such a lane is lifted.
6.This refers merely to the process of enclosing the area in question. In addition, as mentioned in Hilchot Eruvin 1:1-2, it is necessary for the people who share the lane to join together in an eruv, each contributing a certain measure of food.
7.The Rambam's definition of a lane follows the conception of Rabbenu Chanan'el in his commentary on Eruvin 12a. Most other Rishonim [including Rashi (Eruvin, loc. cit.), Tosafot, the Rashba, and the Ra'avad] differ, and maintain that as long as a lane has three walls (or two walls and a pole on the third side), it is considered a private domain according to the Torah. (See Be'ur Halachah 363:1.)
The difference between the Rambam's view and that of these other authorities does not concern the license to carry, for all agree that it is forbidden to carry within the lane until a pole or a beam is constructed at the fourth side. Instead, the difference involves transferring an article into such a lane with three walls from the public domain. According to the Rambam, one is not liable from such a transfer, while according to the other authorities, one is.
8.As mentioned above, according to the Rambam, one may carry in this lane, because any enclosure with three walls or less is deemed as a carmelit. According to the Torah, there is no restriction against carrying in such a domain.
9.This ruling follows that of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi in his Halachot. Nevertheless, there are many authorities who differ and maintain that this ruling applies only when the lane opens to a carmelit on at least one side. If it opens up to a public domain on both sides, it is not sufficient to erect a frame of an entrance, and a proper gate must be erected (Maggid Mishneh). The Rambam's ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 364:1).
10.Our translation is based on the gloss and drawings of the Maggid Mishneh.
11.The Rambam rules that all that is necessary is a frame of an entrance at one opening of the lane, and a pole or a beam at the other end. Nothing is necessary at the bend of the lane. This follows the opinion of Rav (Eruvin 6a, 8b).
Rashi and Rabbenu Asher, however, interpret Rav's ruling differently and require that a frame of an entrance be constructed at the lane's bend, and a pole or a beam be constructed at both the lane's openings. They explain that this is necessary because, unless the frame of an entrance is constructed at the bend, a person who does not walk through the entire lane will not be aware of the pole or the beam at the other entrance to the lane. This is the view accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3).
12.Based on Shabbat 100a and the Tosefta, Shabbat 11:4, the Ra'avad and the Rashba define this as referring to an incline of ten handbreadths within four cubits. If the incline is gentler than that, this leniency does not apply. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:36) accepts this definition.
13.According to the Torah, one is allowed to carry within the lane, and the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin. Thus, since the steep incline makes the lane distinct from the public domain (and distinct from other lanes), there is no need for any further measures to permit carrying.
From the wording chosen by the Rambam, however, it appears that he does not consider the incline as a wall enclosing the lane (see the Ramah, Orach Chayim, loc. cit.), but rather as a distinguishing factor similar to a beam. Accordingly, a person who transfers an article into this lane from the public domain would not be held liable.
14.This refers to a lane that has walls on either side. Thus, it is considered as if the lane had barriers on all four sides. For the garbage dump can be assumed to be ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. Thus, it is considered to be an added wall, and the sea itself can be assumed to be ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is also considered to be a wall (Mishnah Berurah 363:118).
15.This law does not apply regarding a private garbage dump, because the possibility exists that such a dump will be removed at any time.
16.Our translation follows the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el and Rashi on Eruvin 8a. Although both these authorities agree on the definition of the word שרטון, they quote different versions of that Talmudic passage. Rabbenu Chanan'el follows the version quoted here by the Rambam, which states that "we do not suspect that the sea will wash up a שרטון." The version of the passage quoted by Rashi (and printed in our texts of the Talmud today) states, "we suspect that the sea will wash up a שרטון."
Significantly, this difference in approach to this passage has been preserved. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:29) follows the ruling of the Rambam, while subsequent Ashkenazic authorities and the Ramah follow that of Rashi which forbids carrying in such a lane. According to this view, it is impossible to enclose it with an eruv.
17.See the definition of the term רחבה in Chapter 16, Halachah 10.
18.Were the lane to end directly opposite the entrance from the yard to the public domain, a more stringent ruling would be applied and it would be necessary to construct a frame of an entrance. See Halachot 3 and 18.
19.The Maggid Mishneh explains that were the lane to end at the side of the yard, it would resemble an L-shaped lane. Hence, the laws mentioned in Halachah 3 would apply. When, however, the lane does not end at the side of the yard, it has no resemblance to an L-shaped lane. Therefore, the entrance to the yard is itself considered a distinguishing factor. (Note, however, Rabbenu Asher and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 365:3, which require that the people whose homes open up to the lane and the yard join together in an eruv.)
Significantly, according to the Maggid Mishneh, the word "forbidden" used by the Rambam, appears to mean "requires an eruv." This would concur with the Ra'avad's interpretation of Eruvin 7b which states that if the people whose homes open to the yard join in an eruv together with the people whose homes open to the lane, it is permitted to carry in the lane even if it ends in the side of the yard.
Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) which mentions that an eruv can never be effective for such a lane. See the explanation of this ruling in the Mishnah Berurah 365:23.
20.The fundamental principle behind these conditions is that an enclosure that is used by a private person will afford greater privacy than an enclosure used by many people. Therefore, it is necessary that the enclosure be more substantial (the Rashba as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).
21.When only a single house or courtyard opens to a lane, it bears a far closer resemblance to private property.
22.If a lane is not more than four cubits or if it is square shaped, it appears like a courtyard.
23.I.e., the distance from one entrance to the other.
24.The distance between the two walls on either side.
25.A barrier of this length is considered to be a wall, and thus a portion of this side of the lane is also considered to be enclosed.
26.Although the requirement to construct two poles or a barrier is more stringent than the norm for a lane, it still represents a leniency. There is no need to construct the frame of an entrance as in a courtyard.
The Rambam's ruling (with several additions) is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26). In his gloss, the Ramah adds that it has become customary to enclose all lanes with the frame of an entrance - i.e., two poles, and a cord above them.
27.The length of a courtyard refers to the space from its entrance to the opposite wall (Maggid Mishneh). Although there are other interpretations, this is the definition accepted as halachah (Mishnah Berurah 363:116).
28.Our translation is based on the second interpretation of the Rambam's words offered by the Maggid Mishneh, which is supported by the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Eruvin 5:15. From that source, it appears that the Rambam conceives of a lane as having several courtyards and several houses open up to it. If, however, there is only one house opening up to it, although it contains several courtyards, or one courtyard although it contains several houses, it is not sufficient.
Rashi (Eruvin 12b), however, offers a different interpretation, explaining that to be considered a lane, an enclosure must have two courtyards open up to it, and each of the courtyards must have two houses open up to it. This view is accepted by the Rashba and by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26).
29.Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which states that when a lane is less than four cubits long, the frame of an entrance is required to enclose it. Significantly, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:27 quotes the Rambam's ruling and not that of the Shulchan Aruch. (See also Mishnah Berurah 363:93.)
30.In the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah, the word, ומשהו (lit. "and something") is added in parentheses. Rav David Arameah and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) interpret this to mean that the four handbreadths must be "ample." B'nei Binyamin explains that there is a printing error and the word משהו refers to the poles as in the previous halachah. Rav Kapach maintains that the word is a printer's addition and does not exist in the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah.
31.The Kessef Mishneh (and his view is quoted by the Magen Avraham 363:29) explains that even if the majority of the lane is wider than three handbreadths, since its entrance is less than three handbreadths it is considered to be closed, and no further measures are necessary.
32.I.e., based on the principle of l'vud, the lane is considered to be a closed space and not open (Kessef Mishneh). Although there are more lenient opinions, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:28) accepts the Rambam's ruling.
33.As mentioned in the notes on the first halachah of this chapter, the Rambam differs with many of the other Rishonim and maintains that, according to Torah law, an area enclosed by three partitions is a makom patur and not a private domain. Therefore, a person who transfers an article to it from the public domain or vice versa is not liable.
As mentioned in several places throughout the first chapter of the tractate of Eruvin, there is a difference of opinion among the Sages regarding why one is permitted to carry within a lane when a beam is erected over its fourth side. The opinion quoted by the Rambam maintains that although the Sages forbade carrying in such a domain, their prohibition is lifted because the beam serves as a distinction, setting this lane apart, physically and conceptually, from the public domain.
The other opinion maintains that the beam is considered to be a wall (i.e., it is considered as if there were a wall descending from the beam downward enclosing the lane). Hence, the lane is considered to be enclosed on all four sides and therefore, as a private domain.
34.In the first chapter of the tractate of Eruvin, our Sages also differ regarding why permission is granted to carry in a lane when a pole is erected at its fourth side. According to the opinion quoted by the Rambam, it is considered as if a wall emerges from the pole, and thus the lane is considered to be enclosed by a wall on all of its sides.
There is, however, another opinion, which states that the pole is erected merely to create a distinction and it is not considered to be a wall.
35.Some of the authorities who maintain that an enclosure with three walls is considered to be a private domain according to Torah law, permit carrying within a public domain if gates are erected on one side and a frame of an entrance, pole, or beam is erected on the other. (See the Mishnah Berurah 364:6.)
36.The definition of a public domain is taken from the encampment of the Jewish people in the desert, and there the public domain did not have gates (Mishnah Berurah 364:7). The gates enclose the domain on all four sides. Hence, even though many people walk through it, it is still considered as "private."
37.Based on Eruvin 6a-b, many Rishonim differ with the Rambam on this point and maintain that not only must the gates be fit to be closed at night, they must actually be closed, in order for carrying to be permitted in a public domain. Gates that can be closed, but are not actually closed, are effective only in an open lane. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 364:2) mentions the Rambam's view, the more stringent opinion is favored.
It must be emphasized that from Chapter 14, Halachah 1, and Hilchot Eruvin 1:1, it appears that the Rambam also requires doors that are actually closed. Several explanations are offered by the commentaries in resolution of this difficulty.
38.Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 364:4, which states that a frame of an entrance is considered to be a wall. Therefore, if one erected poles on each corner of a square and connected them with a string above, one creates a private domain. Nevertheless, the Rabbis forbade carrying within an area fit to be considered a public domain unless it has a proper gate at its entrance. The Rambam, however, could not accept this ruling, because as stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 16, if the open portions of a barrier exceed the enclosed portions, it is not acceptable.
39.Herein lies one of the points of controversy regarding the eruvim that are constructed around communities today. For few modern cities or villages are enclosed by actual walls with gates, and in practice, most of these eruvim employ a frame of an entrance, using telephone wires and the like.
As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 1, and its notes, the Rambam does not subscribe to the opinion that a public domain must contain 600,000 people passing through it. Although the later Ashkenazic authorities accept this more lenient view, they also suggest that those who are careful in their observance accept the Rambam's ruling.
Whether this principle is to be applied with regard to great metropolises like Manhattan, Brooklyn, London, and the like which have more than 600,000 passersby or with regard to smaller communities which are considered a public domain only according to the more stringent view, the public domain must be enclosed by proper walls. The use of a frame of an entrance employing telephone or electric wires and the like is not sufficient.
40.Although the inner portion of the beam or the pole is of most importance, it is, nevertheless, permitted to carry under the beam or opposite the pole, because that area is considered to be a makom patur (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 365:6).
41.The Rambam's ruling is based on Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of Eruvin 8b,9a. The Ra'avad and most Ashkenazic authorities (among them Tosafot and Rabbenu Asher) interpret that passage differently and maintain that we are permitted to carry beneath a beam when it opens up to a carmelit.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 365:4) follows the Rambam's ruling. The Mishnah Berurah 365:27, however, mentions the more lenient views. Furthermore, many authorities (e.g., Maggid Mishnah, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 365:6) agree that if a beam is four handbreadths wide and is strong enough to support a roof, it is permitted to carry beneath it. In that instance, the outer end of the beam is considered to descend and serve as a fourth wall.
42.In that instance, the area between the poles is considered to be a distinct entity, with walls on either side.
43.Generally, one is allowed to carry within a makom patur. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade carrying in a carmelit, a makom patur which resembles a public domain. In the situation at hand, since one makom patur (the carmelit) is adjacent to another makom patur (the area opposite the pole or beneath the beam), the two are combined and form a single entity. Therefore, carrying is forbidden, not only in the carmelit, but also between the poles.
44.The Maggid Mishneh states that an animal used as a pole must be bound and may not be free to move. This concept can be derived from Chapter 16, Halachah 21, which states that an animal used for a partition may be bound. As mentioned in Halachah 9, a pole is considered to be a partition.
45.See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10-15 and 8:3 with regard to the different laws pertaining to an asherah, a tree that is worshiped.
46.The leniency mentioned represents a novel concept, for seemingly it applies even when the pole is associated with the idol worship of a Jew. (A pole worshiped by gentiles can be used if the gentiles nullfiy its connection with idol worship before it comes into the possession of a Jew. If, however, it is owned by a Jew, the connection with idol worship can never be nullified.)
Generally, since we are obligated to destroy objects that are associated with idol worship, from a halachic perspective, they are considered as if they have already been burnt to ashes. For example, Hilchot Shofar 1:3 states that it is forbidden to use a shofar belonging to an עיר הנדחת ("an apostate city") and Hilchot Lulav 8:1 states that a palm branch used for idol worship is unacceptable for use as a lulav. Since both a shofar and lulav have a minimum requirement for their length, an object that must be destroyed because of its connection with idol worship is unacceptable.
In the case at hand, however, since there is no minimum requirement for the width or breadth of a pole, there is no difficulty in using a tree that has been worshiped.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's explanation, for although there is no minimum width or breadth required for a pole, there is a minimum requirement for its height. Since the wood of the tree that has been worshiped is considered as though it had been burned to ash already, it lacks this minimum height.
(The Ra'avad, therefore, differs with the Rambam and maintains that a pole, like a beam, is merely a distinction. Therefore, no minimum height is required.)
Many of the other Rishonim differ with the Ra'avad and accept the Rambam's decision. The Maggid Mishneh differentiates between a shofar and a lulav - which must have three coordinates: width, breadth, and height - and a beam, which requires only one: height. The fundamental point of his explanation is that although such a beam is considered to lack dimensions, it exists and in this instance all that is necessary is its existence. See the notes of Rav Chayim Soloveichik to this halachah.
Tosafot (Eruvin 80b) offers a different explanation, stating that even if the tree was burned, one could stick its ashes together and obtain a pole ten handbreadths high.
47.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:6), the Rambam explains that this height is required for a pole, because the minimum height of a lane is ten handbreadths. Thus, the pole would extend for the entire height of the lane. Even if the lane is higher, the pole is not required to be more than ten handbreadths high.
48.Based on Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:9, it can be inferred that this refers to a tree that was worshiped by a Jew or a tree that was worshiped by a gentile, but which was cut down before the gentile nullified its connection with idol worship.
49.Even though the beam must be sturdy enough to support a brick that is one and a half handbreadths wide, it is possible for there to be a portion of the brick extending on either side of the beam (Eruvin 14a, Kessef Mishneh).
50.When a beam is built in such a sturdy fashion, it is obviously placed there as a permanent part of the lane, and thus will serve as a distinction for the people inside of it.
51.Based on the Jerusalem Talmud, the Maggid Mishneh states that it is not enough for the beam to support a single brick. It must be sturdy enough to support an entire row of bricks of this size. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:17) quotes the Rambam's wording, the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:19, Mishnah Berurah 363:59) quote the Maggid Mishneh's view.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:18) also quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher that if the beam is more than four handbreadths wide, it does not have to be sturdy enough to hold a brick.
52.Literally "half of three handbreadths by three handbreadths."
53.I.e., the supports that are attached to the walls on which the beam is placed.
54.Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that the supports need not be that sturdy. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:18) quotes both opinions without coming to a final decision. Similarly, there is a difference of opinion among the later authorities concerning this issue.
55.If the walls of the lane are not ten handbreadths high, they are not significant and it is considered as if the lane lacks enclosures on either side.
56.The Maggid Mishneh states that this restriction applies only when a beam is being used, for the passersby will not notice a beam that is more than twenty cubits high. If, however, a pole is used, there is no limitation on the height of the lane. This interpretation is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26).
57.As mentioned in Chapter 16, Halachah 16, an opening that is larger than ten cubits is too large to be considered to be an entrance.
58.I.e., the entrance to the lane is an open space without a doorway or gate.
59.The Ra'avad and others object to this ruling, stating that if the walls of a lane are not ten handbreadths high, the fact that the opening is constructed in the form of a frame of an entrance is of no significance. Since the walls of the lane are not high enough to be considered significant entities, of what value is the fact that the opening is constructed in the form of a frame of an entrance?
The Meiri explains that since the frame of the entrance is at least ten handbreadths high, the fact that the walls of the lane themselves are lower is insignificant. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's opinion. Note the explanation of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:27, which explains that this applies in a situation when the walls of the lane are not ten handbreadths high. Nevertheless, the lane is considered a private domain because of the walls of houses and courtyards that adjoin it.
See also the Mishnah Berurah 363:93, which mentions that many later authorities accept the Ra'avad's objection and allow people to carry in such a lane only when the walls are ten handbreadths high. These authorities, however, explain that if the walls of the lane are ten handbreadths throughout the lane, with the exception of its opening, the construction of a frame of an entrance at the opening makes it permissible for people to carry within.
60.When the frame of an entrance is constructed, there is no need for a post or a beam. For the construction of a frame of an entrance causes an entrance to be considered as if it were enclosed, as stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 16.
61.From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:1), it is clear that he is speaking about designs and ornaments on the beam itself. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 363:26, based on Rabbenu Asher's interpretation of Eruvin 3a), states that it is sufficient for there to be designs on the wall next to the beam. For when people look at the designs, their attention will also be drawn to the beam.
62.Note the Kessef Mishneh's statements that permission is not granted to carry in a lane that is more than ten handbreadths wide, despite the fact that the beam placed above it has designs.
63.The principle that objects above 20 cubits high will not be noticed easily by the human eye is also applied with reference to a sukkah (the s'chach may not be more than 20 cubits high) and with regard to a Chanukah candelabra (which may not be placed 20 cubits above the ground).
64.We have translated the Rambam's words in the most simple fashion, following Rav Kapach's interpretation. The Maggid Mishneh (based on Eruvin 4b) offers a much more complicated interpretation, explaining that if originally a beam was erected more than 20 cubits above the ground and then a second beam was erected above the floor to reduce its height, there may not be more than 20 cubits between the first beam and the second. This approach is also followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26).
65.Rashi (Eruvin 5a) explains that a smaller area is not sufficient. A lane is not considered significant unless it is more than four cubits by four cubits, as explained in Halachah 7. Thus, there must be a portion of the lane with walls that are ten handbreadths high, with at least this area.
66.Leading to a public domain or a carmelit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 365:1).
67.I.e., the opening is made in the side wall of the lane. Nevertheless, it is very close to the opening of the lane where the pole or the beam erected to permit carrying was placed.
68.Although generally the walls of a lane must be four cubits long, as mentioned in Halachah 7, leniency is allowed in this instance, since the lane existed previously (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.; Mishnah Berurah 365:2).
69.As mentioned in Chapter 16, Halachah 16, an opening that is larger than ten cubits causes the entire side to be considered to be unenclosed, unless a frame of an entrance is constructed above it.
70.Although the opening is not too large to nullify the enclosure, since the people will be going in and out through the new opening, they will not notice the beam or the pole erected at the original entrance (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.).
71.When the walls of the lane open to the courtyard and there is an opening to the public domain on the opposite side, it appears as if the lane leads directly into the public domain. If, however, there are projections remaining at the side of the entrance from the lane to the courtyard, they are considered to be equivalent to a pole, and it is permitted to carry within the lane. (See Mishnah Berurah 365:12- 13.)
72.See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 365:3), which states that the question of whether the opening to the public domain must be directly opposite the opening to the lane for the restriction to apply depends on whether or not an eruv has been made between the inhabitants of the lane and the inhabitants of the courtyard. See the notes to Halachah 1.
73.This clarifies the definition of "private domain" given at the beginning of Chapter 14 - i.e., private property belonging to a single individual, a group, or a collective.
74.Eruvin 8b describes this situation as "a lane structured like a centipede" - i.e., that has different paths leading into it like the legs of a centipede. The Maggid Mishneh depicts this as follows.
There is, however, some difficulty with his interpretation, because the Rambam specifically states, "Although the openings are not opposite one another." Accordingly, Rav Kapach has drawn the following diagram.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 364:5) mentions both possibilities, stating that they are both governed by the same laws. As will be mentioned, its rulings are based on a different perspective than that of the Rambam.
75.See Halachah 3 with regard to an L-shaped lane.
76.The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as requiring the frame of an entrance to be constructed at the entrance from the path to the public domain on one side. On the other side of the path, at the entrances that lead to the public domain, a pole or a beam is sufficient.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) differs and maintains that the frame of an entrance should be made at the entrance of the path to the main lane. At the entrance to the public domain, a pole or a beam is sufficient. The difference between these rulings depends on their rulings regarding an L-shaped lane, as mentioned in the notes on Halachah 3.
77.At one side of the lane the wall protrudes further than the other, so that the opening to the lane is a diagonal.
78.Placing the beam at a diagonal is not acceptable, because a beam is intended to create a distinction between the lane and the public domain. When the beam is positioned at a diagonal, a person carrying in the extension of the lane will not differentiate between it and the public domain.
The Rashba (quoted in the Maggid Mishneh) states that one may carry in the extended portion of the lane only by erecting the frame of an entrance across the diagonal. This ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:30). If, however, one erects a pole at both sides of the entrance to the lane, it is not acceptable. One may, however, carry in the area behind the inner pole (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:36; Mishnah Berurah 363:125).
79.The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as saying that the same laws apply if one erected a beam over the midst of a lane. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:32).
80.Eruvin 14b explains that this law is seemingly self-evident. Nevertheless, it was necessary to mention it, for one might think that carrying would be forbidden within the inner half lest one carry in the outer half.
81.The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) emphasize that the inner portion must meet all the criteria for a lane mentioned in Halachah 7.
82.As mentioned in Halachah 14, it is possible to enable people to carry within a lane by erecting a beam or a pole only when the opening to a lane is ten cubits or less wide. If the opening is wider, a frame of an entrance is necessary.
83.The fact that the two lanes merge is not significant, for it is the width at the entrance that is the determining factor. In this instance as well, the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:33) follow the rationale mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah and emphasize that both the new lanes created by the erection of the wall must meet all the conditions for a lane mentioned in Halachah 7.
84.The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:34) states that the measures cited by the Rambam are not arbitrary figures. As long as the walls erected exceed the size of the empty space between them and the wall, and the opening is ten cubits wide or less, it is possible to allow people to carry within the lane by erecting a pole or a beam.
Eruvin 10a mentions that generally as long as the enclosed portion of a side is equal to the open portion, it is acceptable. (See Chapter 16, Halachah 16.) In this instance, however, since a majority of the side is left open for the entrance, the enclosed portion of the remainder must exceed the open portion.
85.The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) underscores that the leniency mentioned in this halachah applies only when people do not enter and leave through the spaces on the sides. It is, nevertheless, unlikely that they would do so unless there is a clear indication that this is the common practice (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:40; Mishnah Berurah 363:148). See Halachah 17.
86.Based on Eruvin 5 a-b, the Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to a portion of the wall that projects into the lane, but which was not constructed for the purpose of serving as a pole. It is, nevertheless, acceptable.
The Maggid Mishneh also mentions other opinions that interpret the above Talmudic portion as referring to a projection that is less than four cubits wide. If the width of the projection exceeds four cubits, the projection is considered to be a wall. If the width of the entire side exceeds eight cubits, another pole is required. This opinion is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:12).
87.E.g., a tree that is growing at the side of the lane.
88.The Maggid Mishneh interprets Eruvin 15a, the source for this halachah, as referring to a situation where a tree was growing near a pole at the side of the lane, and the pole was removed. If it was removed before the Sabbath, we can assume that the people relied on the tree to use as a pole. Hence, it is acceptable. If, however, the pole was removed on the Sabbath itself, the tree is not acceptable, for there was no intent to use it for this purpose before the commencement of the Sabbath. This conception is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:11).
89.This diagram, taken from the Maggid Mishneh, is also repeated in Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:11 and the Mishneh Berurah 363:31. See the accompanying diagram. In this way, the projection is seen only by those standing within the lane and not by those standing outside.
90.This is a matter of controversy among the commentaries. Rashi, Eruvin 9b, interprets this as a direct opposite of the above diagram. Tosafot objects, and reverses the interpretation of the terms.
91.The Mishnah Berurah 363:35 explains that even when the pole is ten handbreadths high, it is not acceptable if it is more than three handbreadths above the ground. The rationale for this ruling is that a pole is considered like a wall, and a wall must reach within three handbreadths of the ground.
92.Note the Mishnah Berurah 363:22, which states that this restriction applies regardless of the size of the pole.
93.As mentioned in the notes on the beginning of the halachah, the Rambam's ruling is not accepted by all the authorities.
94.As mentioned in Halachah 9, a beam that is placed over the entrance of a lane differentiates between the lane and the public domain. When, however, this beam is covered by a mat, it appears that it was placed there to hang objects on it and thus no longer serves its original function.
95. the beam is no longer considered significant for its original purpose. If the mat reaches the ground - or because of the principle of l'vud, within three handbreadths of the ground - it is considered to be a wall, provided it is tied so that it will not be moved by the wind. (See Chapter 16, Halachah 24.)
96. Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:25) mentions that these spikes are implanted at an angle, inclined toward the inside of the lane. Thus, there are two difficulties with the beam:
a) It is placed on the spikes and not on the walls of the lane itself,
b) Its span is shorter than the width of the lane itself.
From the diagram drawn by the Maggid Mishneh to depict the Rambam's conception, it would appear that there is a difference of opinion and the difficulty is that the spikes and the beam are outside the lane.
97. Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions that if the pole is within three handbreadths of the wall of the lane, it is acceptable, based on the principle of l'vud.
98. Maggid Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:23, and the Mishnah Berurah 363:67 explain that even if the beam does not reach either wall (e.g., it is placed atop a pillar, in the midst of the lane), it is acceptable as long as it is within three handbreadths of both walls.
99. they are considered as though they are connected, based on the principle of l'vud.
100. Halachah 13.
101. on Eruvin 14a, the Ra'avad explains that the beams must be close enough to each other actually to support the brick if placed there. The Rambam (see the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh) explains that as long as the beams are within three handbreadths of each other, and their combined width is a handbreadth, theoretically, they would be strong enough to support a brick placed upon them. Hence, it is sufficient even though in their present position, the beams are unable to support a brick.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:22) mentions both interpretations, but appears to favor that of the Rambam. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:24, which states that one should be stringent and follow the Ra'avad's view.
102.This is based on the principle of chavot rami, literally, "cast it down." We find this principle also applied in Hilchot Sukkah 5:21 and Hilchot Tum'at Meit 16:6.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh, however, both note the apparent differences between the Rambam's citation of this principle here and in Hilchot Sukkah, where the Rambam states:
If the s'chach was uneven - i.e., some of it high and some of it low, it is kosher, provided there is less than three handbreadths between the [height of the] upper and lower [portions of the s'chach].
If the upper portion [of the s'chach] is a handbreadth or more wide, even though it is more than three handbreadths above [the lower portion], we consider it to be descending and touching the edge of the lower portion.
Since as mentioned in the previous notes, it is only the combined width of the beams which is a handbreadth, and each beam is smaller, the Maggid Mishneh asks why the principle of chavut rami applies. Seemingly, it would be necessary for the upper beam to be a handbreadth wide as well.
103.The maximum acceptable height for a beam (Halachah 14).
104.The minimum acceptable height for a beam (ibid.).
105.As explained in the opening clause of this halachah. With regard to this clause as well, the objection raised by the Ra'avad with regard to the first clause is also relevant. Indeed, it is far more applicable in this instance, for when the boards are not on the same plane, it is impossible for them to hold a brick.
As in the first clause, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:23) quotes both opinions, but appears to favor the Rambam's view. In this instance, however, most of the later authorities suggest accepting the stringency suggested by the Ra'avad.
106.The Mishnah Berurah 363:63 explains that this law involves a further leniency: Since the beam is rounded, it will not be able to support a brick. Nevertheless, since it would be strong enough to accept a brick if it were straight, it is acceptable.
107.The Rambam's words are a direct quote from the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:5). In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam notes that the relation mentioned here is merely an approximation, and the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is pi.
108.I.e., the portion of the beam that extends beyond its place is considered as if it did not exist, and we calculate the distance - on a straight line - between the two points of the beam on the extremity of the permitted area. If that distance is less than three handbreadths, it is acceptable, because of the principle of l'vud. If not, a new beam is required.
109.Wells are generally ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths by four handbreadths wide, thus constituting a private domain. Accordingly, if the area around them is not enclosed, it is forbidden to draw water and drink, since by doing so one will be removing an article from a private domain to a carmelit or to a public domain.
As mentioned in Halachah 30, our Sages granted the leniency mentioned in this halachah as a specific dispensation to the pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem for the festivals. Rather than require the well to be surrounded by a proper wall, they allowed the use of such a structure.
110.See Figure A. Note the Mishnah, Eruvin 2:1, which uses the term d'yomdin, which literally means "two pillars" to describe the structure positioned at each of the corners of the square.
111.This is the minimum length of the walls placed at each side of the corner. Although a wall of four handbreadths is considered significant in many instances, in the case at hand a larger measure is required, because the majority of the enclosure remains open.
112.This is the maximum size of the space allowed between walls. As obvious from Halachah 29, it may be smaller.
113.See Figure B.
114. Figure C.
115.Based on the principle of l'vud.
116.If the enclosure was any smaller, it is likely that an animal may turn and its owner would carry the bucket out of the enclosure. Eruvin 19a states that this distance is two cubits in length on each side.
117.A camel is much larger than a cow and its head and the majority of its body cannot fit into the space for the head and the majority of the body of a cow.
118.I.e., the further the distance from the well, the larger the distance between the corners becomes. Rather than make the corner walls larger, it is proper to add a third (or more) wall to each side, to maintain the distance between each wall at thirteen and one third cubits or less (Eruvin 18a). See the accompanying diagram.
119.As the halachah mentions below, this leniency was generally allowed for animals; only when the well was very wide were men also allowed to benefit from it.
120.I.e., a well - which is itself a source of water - but not a reservoir or cistern in which water was stored. See the following halachah.
121.I.e., in contrast to one belonging to a private individual. See the following halachah.
122.This distinguishes the area as a private domain. In regard to descending to drink from the well see Chapter 24, Halachah 4.
123.This interpretation of the Hebrew חגורה follows the commentary of Tosafot, rather than Rashi (Eruvin 22b).
124.Although there is no transgression in performing such an activity, since the stall projects within the enclosure, our Sages forbade this for the reasons stated by the Rambam.
125.The Rambam's ststements are based on Eruvin 20b, which explains that while attempting to fix the broken stall, the person may carry the bucket to the public domain. Nevertheless, as the Merkevet HaMishneh notes, the Rambam slightly changes the description of the situation mentioned in the Talmud to allow for a shorter, more concise text.
126.Note the Avnei Nezer (Orach Chayim, Responsum 265), who question how large an area may be included with such walls for the area to be considered a private domain according to the Torah. From the Rambam's statements, it appears that even if there are more than thirteen and one third handbreadths between the walls, it is still considered a private domain.
127.Thus, the restrictions against drawing water from such a well mentioned in Halachah 30 and 31 are Rabbinic in origin. When our Sages instituted these restrictions, they considered the difficulties that might be caused to the festive pilgrims and did not impose them in regard to their animals.
128.Eruvin 22a explains that even if a public thoroughfare passes through such a structure, it is still considered to be a private domain, because it has the abovementioned walls. Note the statements of the Baal HaHashlamah, who differs with the Rambam's ruling.
129.See Halachah 18.
130.For it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another. Since there are no people dwelling in the enclosure, an eruv is not required (Rashi, Eruvin 20a).
131.Since people from two different courtyards are using the area, an eruv is required. Nevertheless, once an eruv is made, there is no difficulty in carrying from the courtyards to the enclosure. Although there is an opinion (Eruvin 20a) that forbids carrying in such a situation even when an eruv has been made, it is not accepted as halachah.
Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that the two courtyards must enter between the same walls of the enclosure and share a common divider. The eruv must be placed in an opening in this divider. If, however, the courtyards are on opposite sides of the enclosure, the eruv is not effective. Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that there is no indication of such a restriction in the Rambam's words.
132.We do not say that since it was permitted to carry in the enclosure for a portion of the Sabbath, we are able to continue carrying within (Rashi, loc. cit.).
133.According to the Torah itself, however, the enclosure is a private domain, as reflected in the previous halachah.
134.From the Rambam's wording, it would appear that this leniency applies regardless of whether the well had dried up on the Sabbath or was dry even before the Sabbath commenced. If it begins to flow with water, one may carry within the enclosure. Note, however, Rashi (loc. cit.) and the Baal HaHashlamah, who maintain that the leniency applies only when originally there was water in the well at the commencement of the Sabbath. Since the walls of the enclosure were not considered to be an acceptable partition at the commencement of the Sabbath, they cannot become acceptable on that Sabbath.
135.See Chapter 16, Halachah 22.
136.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:3), the Rambam differentiates between this instance and others (e.g., Chapter 16, Halachah 13), where, since permission is granted to carry within an area at the commencement of the Sabbath, that permission is continued throughout the Sabbath. These leniencies are granted when the difficulties arise because of the restrictions involved in making an eruv.
A more stringent ruling is applied in this situation, because if the pole or beam is removed, it is as if the area is open entirely. The difficulty is not in the status of the people within the enclosure, but in the enclosure itself. It no longer fits the standards required by the Sages.
137.And there is thus no possibility of one of the Torah's prohibitions being violated. Nevertheless, carrying in such a lane is forbidden because of Rabbinic decree.
138.A Greek architectural structure with three (and sometimes two) walls and a roof with an aperture for sunlight in the center. Often translated as "a porch."
139.Generally, as reflected by his statements in Halachah 2, the Rambam prohibits carrying in a structure with only three walls unless an additional measure is taken - e.g., the construction of a pole or a beam. In this instance, as he explains, that function is served by the edge of the roof, which is considered to descend and form the fourth wall. (See Chapter 16, Halachah 7.)
140.Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 361:2), which states that this applies even when the opening is more than ten cubits wide. See also the Maggid Mishneh, who mentions that there are opinions that require a portion of the wall to remain at either corner for this principle to apply.
Note also the Ramah (Orach Chayim 361:2), who applies the principle, "the edge of the roof is considered to descend," even with regard to a structure of two walls, provided the walls are built as an L.
141.The Ra'avad and others object to this ruling, for as mentioned in the notes on Halachot 2 and 9, they maintain that a structure with three walls is considered to be a private domain according to the Torah.
142.See Chapter 16, Halachah 16.
143.See Chapter 16, Halachah 20.
144.I.e., were there to be a beam of the roof of the house extending over the portion that was open, we can apply the principle stated in the above portion of the halachah, "the edge of the roof is considered to descend," and on this basis allow one to carry within.
145.This clause - which significantly is lacking in some authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah - has created discussion among the commentaries. In his commentary on Eruvin 94a, Rashi explains that the word "angle" mentioned in the Talmud refers to roofs which, like most of the roofs in Europe, descend at a slant. When a roof is flat, the principle "the edge of the roof is considered to descend" applies. If the roof descends at an angle, the principle does not. This interpretation is quoted by Rav Yosef Karo, both in his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) as a different interpretation than that of the Rambam.
The Rambam's conception is clearly expressed in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:3), where he interprets the term "angle" to mean that the beams of the roof were built on a slant, as in the accompanying diagram. Since the beams do not end in the place where the opening was made - but were rather broken off abruptly - the principle "the edge of the roof is considered to descend" does not apply.
146.This measure is not particularly relevant with regard to the laws of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, it is mentioned here, because the measures of a handbreadth and a cubit, which are extremely relevant, are dependent on it. See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:9, which defines a fingerbreadth as the length of two barley corns. In modern measure, it is 2 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
147.Thus, 8 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 9.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
148.Note Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:6, which explains that some of the cubits used for the altar's dimensions contained only five handbreadths.
149.I.e., when a more stringent approach would call for a larger measure, it is the larger measure that is required. When a more stringent approach would call for a smaller measure, it is the smaller measure that is required.
The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as stating that the difference between these two measurements is half a fingerbreadth.
-------
Hayom Yom:
"Today's Day"
Adar I 20, 5774 - 20 February 2014
Thursday 20 Adar I 5703 Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Chamishi with Rashi. Tehillim: 97-103. Tanya: Even in the (p. 137)...transgression, and so on. (p. 137). Avoda (translated as "service" and "striving") is not the striving that avoda (service) itself be true; 1rather, truth itself is an avoda , that the "fingernails" be true. 2Why does that surprise you? "He saw the attribute of Truth," the Talmud declares, 3"and he prostrated himself."
FOOTNOTES 1.Not deceptive or illusory, that it be penetrating rather than superficial, enduring rather than transitory. 2.The "fingernails" are part of man but virtually lifeless. Truth is necessary not only in the "vital" elements of man, his thoughts, emotions, relations with others, etc. but even in the all-but-redundant, the furthest extremities. 3.Sanhedrin 111a. When G-d showed Moshe his Thirteen Attributes of Mercy - Sh'mot 34:6 - Moshe fell on his face, as told in verse 8. The Talmud asks which of the Attributes impressed Moshe so, and answers, the Attribute of Truth. See Supplementary Footnotes in the printed version, p. 125.
-------
Daily Thought:
Defiant Darkness
People ask, “But how could you see so much good in the future when so much evil predominates now—and it grows day by day?”
But such is the order of things: Darkness was placed in the world only to challenge light. As the light intensifies, the darkness thickens to defy it.
-------
Today in Judaism - Today is: Friday, Adar I 21, 5774 · February 21, 2014
Daily Quote:
There is no such thing as a Jew "with no Jewish background." Every Jew's "background" is that he or she is a child of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah... --The Lubavitcher Rebbe
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 6th Portion Exodus 37:17-37:29 with Rashi
Chapter 37
17. And he made the menorah of pure gold; of hammered work he made the menorah, its base and its stem, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowers were [all one piece] with it. יז. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַמְּנֹרָה זָהָב טָהוֹר מִקְשָׁה עָשָׂה אֶת הַמְּנֹרָה יְרֵכָהּ וְקָנָהּ גְּבִיעֶיהָ כַּפְתֹּרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ מִמֶּנָּה הָיוּ:
18. And six branches coming out of its sides: three menorah branches from its one side and three menorah branches from its second side. יח. וְשִׁשָּׁה קָנִים יֹצְאִים מִצִּדֶּיהָ שְׁלשָׁה | קְנֵי מְנֹרָה מִצִּדָּהּ הָאֶחָד וּשְׁלשָׁה קְנֵי מְנֹרָה מִצִּדָּהּ הַשֵּׁנִי:
19. Three decorated goblets on one branch, a knob and a flower, and three decorated goblets on one branch, a knob and a flower; so for the six branches that come out of the menorah. יט. שְׁלשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד כַּפְתֹּר וָפֶרַח וּשְׁלשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בְּקָנֶה אֶחָד כַּפְתֹּר וָפָרַח כֵּן לְשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִן הַמְּנֹרָה:
20. And on [the stem of] the menorah [were] four decorated goblets, its knobs and its flowers. כ. וּבַמְּנֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים כַּפְתֹּרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ:
21. And a knob under the two branches from it, and a knob under the two branches from it, and a knob under the two branches from it; [so] for the six branches that come out of it. כא. וְכַפְתֹּר תַּחַת שְׁנֵי הַקָּנִים מִמֶּנָּה וְכַפְתֹּר תַּחַת שְׁנֵי הַקָּנִים מִמֶּנָּה וְכַפְתֹּר תַּחַת שְׁנֵי הַקָּנִים מִמֶּנָּה לְשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִמֶּנָּה:
22. Their knobs and their branches were [all one piece] with it; all of it [was] one hammered mass of pure gold. כב. כַּפְתֹּרֵיהֶם וּקְנֹתָם מִמֶּנָּה הָיוּ כֻּלָּהּ מִקְשָׁה אַחַת זָהָב טָהוֹר:
23. And he made its lamps seven, and its tongs and its scoops of pure gold. כג. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת נֵרֹתֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה וּמַלְקָחֶיהָ וּמַחְתֹּתֶיהָ זָהָב טָהוֹר:
24. He made it of a talent of pure gold, and all its implements. כד. כִּכָּר זָהָב טָהוֹר עָשָׂה אֹתָהּ וְאֵת כָּל כֵּלֶיהָ:
25. And he made the incense altar out of acacia wood, one cubit long and one cubit wide, square, and two cubits high; its horns were [one piece] with it. כה. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת מִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ רָבוּעַ וְאַמָּתַיִם קֹמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ הָיוּ קַרְנֹתָיו:
26. And he overlaid it with pure gold, [on] its top, its walls all around, and its horns; and he made for it a golden crown all around. כו. וַיְצַף אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת קַרְנֹתָיו וַיַּעַשׂ לוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:
27. And he made two golden rings for it underneath its crown on its two corners, on its two sides, as holders for poles with which to carry it. כז. וּשְׁתֵּי טַבְּעֹת זָהָב עָשָׂה לוֹ | מִתַּחַת לְזֵרוֹ עַל שְׁתֵּי צַלְעֹתָיו עַל שְׁנֵי צִדָּיו לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם:
28. He made the poles out of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. כח. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וַיְצַף אֹתָם זָהָב:
29. And he made the holy anointing oil and the pure incense after the art of a perfumer. כט. וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה קֹדֶשׁ וְאֶת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים טָהוֹר מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵחַ:
-------
Tehillim: Psalm Chapters 104 - 105
Chapter 104
This psalm tells of the beauty of creation, describing that which was created on each of the six days of creation. It proclaims the awesomeness of God Who sustains it all-from the horns of the wild ox to the eggs of the louse.
1. My soul, bless the Lord! Lord my God, You are greatly exalted; You have garbed Yourself with majesty and splendor.
2. You enwrap [Yourself] with light as with a garment; You spread the heavens as a curtain.
3. He roofs His heavens with water; He makes the clouds His chariot, He moves [them] on the wings of the wind.
4. He makes the winds His messengers, the blazing fire His servants.
5. He established the earth on its foundations, that it shall never falter.
6. The depths covered it as a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
7. At Your exhortation they fled; at the sound of Your thunder they rushed away.
8. They ascended mountains, they flowed down valleys, to the place which You have assigned for them.
9. You set a boundary which they may not cross, so that they should not return to engulf the earth.
10. He sends forth springs into streams; they flow between the mountains.
11. They give drink to all the beasts of the field; the wild animals quench their thirst.
12. The birds of the heavens dwell beside them; they raise their voice from among the foliage.
13. He irrigates the mountains from His clouds above; the earth is satiated from the fruit of Your works.
14. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and vegetation requiring the labor of man to bring forth food from the earth;
15. and wine that gladdens man's heart, oil that makes the face shine, and bread that sustains man's heart.
16. The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17. wherein birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the cypress.
18. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rabbits.
19. He made the moon to calculate the festivals; the sun knows its time of setting.
20. You bring on darkness and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
21. The young lions roar for prey, and seek their food from God.
22. When the sun rises, they return and lie down in their dens.
23. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until evening.
24. How manifold are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions.
25. This sea, vast and wide, where there are countless creeping creatures, living things small and great;
26. there ships travel, there is the Leviathan that You created to frolic therein.
27. They all look expectantly to You to give them their food at the proper time.
28. When You give it to them, they gather it; when You open Your hand, they are satiated with goodness.
29. When You conceal Your countenance, they are terrified; when You take back their spirit, they perish and return to their dust.
30. When You will send forth Your spirit they will be created anew, and You will renew the face of the earth.
31. May the glory of the Lord be forever; may the Lord find delight in His works.
32. He looks at the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praise to my God with my [entire] being.
34. May my prayer be pleasant to Him; I will rejoice in the Lord.
35. May sinners cease from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
Chapter 105
When David brought the Holy Ark up to the City of David, he composed this psalm and sang it before the Ark. He recounts all the miracles that God performed for the Jews in Egypt: sending before them Joseph, who was imprisoned, only to be liberated by God, eventually attaining the status of one who could imprison the princes of Egypt without consulting Pharaoh.
1. Offer praise to the Lord, proclaim His Name; make His deeds known among the nations.
2. Sing to Him, chant praises to Him, speak of all His wonders.
3. Glory in His holy Name; may the heart of those who seek the Lord rejoice.
4. Search for the Lord and His might; seek His countenance always.
5. Remember the wonders that He has wrought, His miracles, and the judgements of His mouth.
6. O descendants of Abraham His servant, children of Jacob, His chosen ones:
7. He is the Lord our God; His judgements extend over the entire earth.
8. He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He has commanded to a thousand generations;
9. the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
10. He established it for Jacob as a statute, for Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11. stating, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan"-the portion of your inheritance,
12. when they were but few, very few, and strangers in it.
13. They wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people.
14. He permitted no one to wrong them, and admonished kings for their sake:
15. "Do not touch my anointed ones, and do not harm my prophets.”
16. He called for a famine upon the land; he broke every source of bread.
17. He sent a man before them; Joseph was sold as a slave.
18. They afflicted his foot with chains, his soul was put into iron;
19. until the time that His words came, the decree of the Lord purified him.
20. The king sent [word] and released him, the ruler of nations set him free.
21. He appointed him master of his house and ruler of all his possessions,
22. to imprison his princes at will, and to enlighten his elders.
23. Thus Israel came to Egypt, and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham (Egypt).
24. He multiplied His nation greatly, and made it mightier than its adversaries.
25. He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to conspire against His servants.
26. He sent Moses, His servant; Aaron, whom He had chosen.
27. They placed among them the words of His signs, miracles in the land of Ham.
28. He sent darkness and made it dark, and they did not defy His word.
29. He transformed their waters to blood, and killed their fish.
30. Their land swarmed with frogs in the chambers of their kings.
31. He spoke, and hordes of wild beasts came, and lice throughout their borders.
32. He turned their rains to hail, flaming fire in their land;
33. it struck their vine and fig tree, it broke the trees of their borders.
34. He spoke, and grasshoppers came, locusts without number;
35. and it consumed all grass in their land, it ate the fruit of their soil.
36. Then He smote every firstborn in their land, the first of all their potency.
37. And He took them out with silver and gold, and none among His tribes stumbled.
38. Egypt rejoiced at their leaving, for the fear [of Israel] had fallen upon them.
39. He spread out a cloud for shelter, and a fire to illuminate the night.
40. [Israel] asked, and He brought quail, and with the bread of heaven He satisfied them.
41. He opened a rock and waters flowed; they streamed through dry places like a river,
42. for He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant.
43. And He brought out His nation with joy, His chosen ones with song.
44. He gave them the lands of nations, they inherited the toil of peoples,
45. so that they might keep His statutes and observe His laws. Praise the Lord!
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 30
Lessons in Tanya
Today's Tanya Lesson
Adar I 21, 5774 - February 21, 2014
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 30
אבל באמת אם הוא יודע ספר, ומחזיק בתורת ה׳, וקרבת אלקים יחפ׳
In truth, however, if he is a scholar and upholds G‑d’s Torah, and wishes to be close to G‑d,
גדול עונו מנשוא, ואשמתו גדלה בכפלי כפליים במה שאינו נלחם ומתגבר על יצרו בערך ובחינת מלחמה עצומה הנ״ל
his sin is unbearably great and his guilt is increased manifold for his not waging war and not overcoming his impulse in a manner commensurate with the quality and nature of the war mentioned above that the kal shebekalim must face.
מאשמת קל שבקלים מיושבי קרנות הרחוקים מה׳ ותורתו
His guilt is far greater than the guilt of the kal shebekalim, the most worthless of the street-corner squatters, who are remote from G‑d and His Torah.
ואין אשמתם גדולה כל כך במה שאינם כובשים יצרם הבוער כאש להבה מפני פחד ה׳ המבין ומביט אל כל מעשיהם
Their guilt for not summoning up the fear of G‑d Who knows and sees all their actions, in order to restrain their impulse which burns like a fiery flame, is not as heinous
כאשמת כל הקרב הקרב אל ה׳ ואל תורתו ועבודתו
as the guilt of one who draws ever nearer to G‑d, His Torah and His service.
וכמו שאמרו רז״ל גבי אחר: שידע בכבודי וכו׳
As our Sages of blessed memory said of the apostate “Acher”, Elisha ben Avuyah: 1“Because he knew My glory...,” said G‑d; if despite this he still sinned, his guilt is far greater.
ולכן אמרו רז״ל על עמי האר׳ שזדונות נעשו להם כשגגות
Therefore our Sages declared in regard to the illiterate that 2“Deliberate sins are regarded in their case as inadvertent acts,” since they are unaware of the gravity of their sins.
With a scholar, the reverse is true: an oversight due to lack of study is adjudged as being as grave as a deliberate sin. 3Thus, his failure to restrain his evil impulse is indeed worse than the failure of the kal shebekalim.
By contemplating this, the observant scholar will now be able to fulfill the instruction of the Mishnah (quoted at the beginning of this chapter): “Be lowly of spirit before every man.” Thereby he will crush his own spirit and the spirit of the sitra achra in his animal soul, enabling the light of his soul to permeate and irradiate his body, as explained in ch. 29.
FOOTNOTES 1.Chaghigah 15a (in fourth marginal gloss by the Bach ). 2.Bava Metzia 33b. 3.Avot 4:13.
-------
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Listen Online | MP3 Download
Negative Commandment 321
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day" —Exodus 16:29.
It is forbidden on Shabbat to travel more than 2,000 cubits (approximately 3000 ft.) out of a city's parameters.
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
Negative Commandment 321
Translated by Berel Bell
The 321st prohibition is that we are forbidden to travel [even by foot] on Shabbos.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1, "No man may leave his place on the seventh day."
Oral Tradition defines limit of "travel" as 2000 amos2 beyond the city limit; one may not walk even a single amoh more. However, one may walk within 2000 amos from the city limit in any direction.3
The Mechilta says: " 'No man may leave his place,' — this means beyond 2000 amos."
Our Sages said in tractate Eruvin4, "For violating the prohibition of the Shabbos limit, one receives lashes by Biblical ordinance."5
The details of this commandment are discussed in that same tractate.
FOOTNOTES
1.Shmos 16:29.
2.Approximately 3000 ft. In Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Shabbos 27:1), the Rambam rules that walking 2000 amos is prohibited only by Rabbinic law, while the Biblical prohibition is in effect only at 12 mil, or approximately 24,000 amos.
The Rambam himself explains, however, (in responsa 310, quoted in Mishneh Torah, Kapach ed., p. 575) that there is no contradiction between his two works. Sefer Hamitzvos is meant only to give a general description of the mitzvah, so he did not mention the two categories. Mishneh Torah, on the other hand, gives all the relevant halachic details. See also Introduction to Sefer Hamitzvos.
3.In Mishneh Torah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this area is considered within the suburbs of the city (see Num. 35:5).
4.17b.
5.With this quote, the Rambam proves that this mitzvah in included in the count of the 613 mitzvos.
-------
Rambam:
1 Chapter: Mikvot Chapter 8
Chapter 8
Halacha 1
Any body of water that is in contact with a mikveh, is considered as the mikvehitself and it can be used for immersion. When cavities that are next to the opening of a mikveh or the footprints left by animals share a point of contact with the water of the mikveh that is as large as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch, they may be used for immersion.
Halacha 2
Cavities at the side of the mikveh or crevices at the side of mikveh may be used for immersion even if they have only the slightest point of contact with the water of the mikveh.
Halacha 3
When a needle was placed on the steps leading to a mikveh, one may move his hand back and forth in the water to create waves. Once the wave passes over the needle, it regains purity.
Halacha 4
The following laws apply to a hidden reservoir in a mikveh: If the ground that separates between the mikveh and the reservoir is sturdy and capable of remaining over the course of time, one may not use the water in the reservoir for immersion unless it shares a point of contact with the mikveh as large as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. If it is not capable of remaining for an extended period, one may immerse in its water as long as it shares any contact whatsoever with the water of the mikveh.
Halacha 5
When the wall between two mikveot is cracked in half, the two mikveot are considered as joined. If together they contain 40 se'ah, either of them may be used for immersion. If the wall is cracked horizontally, they are not considered as joined unless there is a point of contact the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. If the water is joined above the wall, they are considered as joined provided there is a layer of water even as thin as a garlic peel connecting them over the width of a space the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch.
Halacha 6
How large is the measure of a hole the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch? A circle with a diameter the width sufficient to enable two average-sized fingers of an ordinary person to rotate within it. The fingers mentioned do not refer to the thumb, but to the first two of the four on the palm of one's hand.
Any entity present in the hole the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch reduces that measure. This applies even to entities that were created from the water.
If there is a doubt whether a hole is the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch or not, the mikveot are not considered as joined. The rationale is that the primary obligation to immerse is Scriptural. And whenever the primary obligation is Scriptural, even when the measure stated is conveyed by the Oral Tradition, we rule stringently when there is an unresolved doubt regarding its measure.
Halacha 7
Mikveot may be purified from each other, an upper mikveh from a lower one and a far-away mikveh from one that is close.
What is implied? An earthenware or lead pipe - for pipes do not disqualify amikveh - is brought and inserted into the acceptable mikveh. One places his hand under it until it becomes full and then takes it and connects it so that the water in the pipe will become intermingled with the water of the other mikveh. Even if the point where they become intermingled is only a hairsbreadth, it is sufficient. Then the two mikveot connected by the pipe are considered as one.
Halacha 8
The following rules apply when there are three cavities in a wadi, the higher one and the lower one contain only 20 se'ah, the middle one contains 40 se'ah, and a current of rain water flows through the wadi. Although the current of water flows into the cavities and out of them, it does not join the cavities as one. Hence, only the middle one is acceptable for immersion. The rationale is that water that is flowing does not join mikveot unless it collects in one place.
Halacha 9
Soft mud from which a cow drinks may be measured as part of a mikveh. If it is so thick that a cow would not drink from it, it should not be measured as part of it.
Halacha 10
When a mikveh contains 40 se'ah of water and mud, one may immerse in both the mud and the water. In which mud may one immerse? In soft mud over which water collects. If the water was on one side and the soft mud on the other side, one may immerse in the water, but not in the mud.
Halacha 11
Any substance that was created from the water, e.g., red worms, is acceptable for immersion. One may immerse in the eye of a giant fish.
Halacha 12
When a mikveh contains exactly 40 se'ah of water and two people descended and immersed, one after the other, the first is pure and the second remains impure. The rationale is that some of water contained in the original 40 se'ahwas removed. This stringency applies even in the feet of the first person were still in the water when the second immerses.
If one immersed a thick sponge or the like in such a mikveh and lifted it up, as long as part of the sponge is touching the water, one who immerses afterwards is pure. The rationale is that all of the water is considered as intermingled.
When one immerses a bed or the like, even though he pushed its legs into the thick mud on the bottom of the mikveh until the water covers it from above, it is pure. The rationale is that it does not become sunk in the water until it becomes immersed in the water first.
When one immerses a large pot in a mikveh with a limited amount of water, it is impure, as it was beforehand, because the water will splash out of the mikveh. Thus the mikveh will be less than 40 se'ah. What should he do? He should lower it via its opening, turn it over in the mikveh, immerse it, and lift it up by its base, so that the water inside will not become "drawn," and return to the mikveh and disqualify it.
Halacha 13
When the water in a mikveh is dispersed, one may press even bundles of straw and bundles of reeds into the water from the sides until the water level will rise and one can descend and immerse within.
Rambam:
3 Chapters: Shabbos Chapter Eighteen, Shabbos Chapter Nineteen, Shabbos Chapter Twenty
Chapter Eighteen
Halacha 1
A person who transfers an article from a private domain into the public domain, or from the public domain into the private domain is not liable,1 unless he transfers an amount that will be beneficial [to accomplish a purpose].2 The following are the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring:3
Halacha 2
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] wine is a quarter of a revi'it;7 if it has congealed, a k'zayit. For the milk of a kosher animal, a gulp.8 For non-kosher milk, enough to apply to one eye. For a woman's milk and egg-white, enough to put in an ointment. For oil, enough to anoint the the small toe of a newborn infant.
Halacha 3
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] straw from grain is a cow's mouthful.14 Straw from beans, a camel's mouthful.15 If, however, one transfers bean straw with the expressed purpose of feeding it to a cow, one is liable for transferring a cow's mouthful.16 Eating that involves difficulty is still considered to be eating. Straws from the ears of grain,17 a lamb's mouthful.18Grass, a kid's mouthful.19
Leaves of garlic and leaves of onion20 when fresh are considered to be human food. Hence, their measure is the size of a dried fig. When they are dry, their measure is a kid's mouthful.
[Should one take out a combination of these substances,] their amounts should not be combined to hold one liable according to the more stringent measure. They should, however, be combined to hold one liable according to the more lenient measure. What is implied? When a person takes out both straw from grain and straw from beans, if the amount he takes out is enough to fill a cow's mouth, he is not liable.21 If it is enough to fill a camel's mouth, he is liable.22 The same applies regarding all similar dimensions of the Sabbath laws.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] spices is the amount necessary to spice an egg. [Different] spices can be combined [to make up this measure].28
Pepper,29 even the slightest amount. Pine sap,30 even the slightest amount.31 A substance with a pleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.32 A substance with an unpleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.33 Perfumes, even the slightest amount. Fine purpled dye,34 even the slightest amount. Rosebuds, even the slightest amount.
Pieces from utensils made from hard metal35 - e.g., bronze or iron - even the slightest amount. [Chips] from the stones of the altar, or from the earth of the altar,36 [pieces] of decayed scrolls or their wrapping cloths,37 even the slightest amount, for [these articles] are [required to be] entombed.38
Halacha 6
A person who transfers seeds of garden plants41 that are not fit for human consumption42 is liable for [transferring] a measure that is almost the size of a dried fig.43 [A person is liable for transferring] two cucumber seeds, two gourd seeds, and five Egyptian bean seeds.44
[A person who] transfers coarse bran [is liable for transferring a quantity] fit to place on the opening of the crucible of a gold refiner.45 [The measure for which a person is liable for transferring] fine bran [depends on his intent]: If [he intends to use the bran as] food [for humans], the measure is the size of a dried fig. As food for animals, a kid's mouthful. For paint, enough to paint a small cloth.
The buds of shrubs46 and carobs that have not yet become sweet, the size of a dried fig. After they become sweet, a mouthful of a kid. In contrast, luf,47mustard, turmos,48and all other foods that are pickled, whether they have become sweet or not, [the measure for which one is liable is] the size of a dried fig.49
Halacha 7
[When a person] transfers seeds50 to eat, [he is liable for transferring] five. [If his intent] is to use them as fuel, they are considered to be wood.51 For counting,52 two, for sowing, two.
[Similarly, the measure for which a person is liable for transferring] hyssop [depends on his intent]. If [his intent] is for human consumption, he is liable for [an amount equal to] the size of a dried fig. For fuel, the measure of wood; for sprinkling,53 the measure acceptable for sprinkling.
Halacha 8
[A person who] transfers nut shells, pomegranate shells, isatis,54 pu'ah,55 and other dyes [is liable for transferring a quantity] that is sufficient to dye a small garment - e.g.,56 the hairnet young girls place on their heads.
Similarly, one who transfers urine that is forty days old,57 Alexandrian niter, soap, cimonia, ashlag,58 and all other cleansing agents [is liable for transferring] the amount necessary to wash a small garment - e.g., the hairnet young girls place on their heads.
A person who transfers herbs that are soaking [is liable for transferring] an amount sufficient to dye a sample for a weaver.
Halacha 9
A person who transfers ink on a quill [is liable for transferring] a measure sufficient to write two letters.59 If, however, a person removes [the dried concentrate used to make] ink or ink in an inkwell, a larger amount is necessary [for him to be liable], i.e., the amount necessary for a person to dip a pen in and write two letters.
If [a person transfers] enough [ink] to write one letter in an inkwell and enough [ink] to write one letter on a quill or enough dry ink to write one letter and enough ink to write one letter on a quill, there is a doubt whether he is liable or not.60
[When a person takes out enough ink to write] two letters and writes them as he is walking, he is liable. Writing them is considered to be placing them down.61[When a person takes out enough ink to write] one letter and writes and then takes out [enough ink to write] a second letter and writes it, he is not liable.62For [the ink for] the first letter is lacking.63
Halacha 10
[A person who transfers] eye paint, whether for medicinal64 or cosmetic purposes, [is liable for transferring an amount sufficient] to paint one eye.65 In places where [a woman] would not apply eye paint to less than two eyes as a cosmetic practice,66 a person who takes out eye paint for cosmetic purposes is not liable unless he takes out a quantity sufficient to paint two eyes.
Halacha 11
[A person who transfers] red clay71 [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a seal for a letter.72Clay, enough to make the opening of a crucible.73
Manure or fine sand, enough to fertilize a leek. Coarse sand, enough to mix with a full trowel of lime.74 Firm clay,75 enough to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible. Hair, enough to mix with clay to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible.76 Lime, enough to apply to a girl's smallest finger.77 Dust or ash, enough to cover the blood of a small bird.78 A pebble, enough for an animal to feel if it was thrown at it79 - i.e., the weight of ten zuzim. A shard, enough to contain a revi'it.
Halacha 12
[A person who transfers] rope [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a handle for a container. Reeds,80 enough to make a hook to hang a sifter or a sieve.81 Palm leaves, enough to make a handle for an Egyptian basket. Palm bast, enough to use as a stopper for a small pitcher of wine.82Unprocessed wool, enough to make a ball the size of a nut.
Bone, enough to make a spoon. Glass, to sharpen the point of a weaver's needle or to cut two threads at once.83
Halacha 13
[A person] is liable for transferring two hairs from the tail of a horse or of a cow.84 If he transfers one bristle from a pig's [back],85 he is liable. Fibers from a date palm, two. The bark of the date branches, one.86
From cotton, from silk, camel's wool, rabbit's wool, wool from an animal of the sea, or any other fibers that can be spun, enough to spin a thread four handbreadths long.87
When a person transfers cloth, sack, or leather, the same minimum measurements that apply with regard to the laws of ritual purity also apply with regard to transferring [on the Sabbath]: [The size of] a cloth for which one is liable for transferring] is three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths];88sackcloth,89 four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths]; leather, five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].90
Halacha 14
When a person transfers an animal hide that was not processed at all and is thus soft, the measure [for which he is liable] is enough to wrap a small weight the size of a shekel. When [it is in the first stages of being processed - i.e.,] salt has been applied to it, but not flour and gall-nut juice, the measure [for which one is liable] is enough to make an amulet.91 If flour has been applied to it, but not gall-nut juice, the measure is enough to write a bill of divorce upon it. If it has been processed entirely, its measure is five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].
Halacha 15
[A person who transfers] processed parchment92 [is liable for transferring a piece] sufficient for the passage from Shema to uvish'arecha.93 Duchsustos, enough to write a mezuzah on it.
Paper, enough to write on it two letters for a customs officer's receipt. These two letters are larger than the letters we [usually write]. A person who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable even though he has already shown it to the customs officer and has been exempted because of it,94 for it will serve forever as proof [of his having paid].
Halacha 16
A person who transfers an animal, a wild beast, or a fowl is liable even if it is alive. A living person, by contrast, is not considered to be a burden.97Nevertheless, if he is bound or sick, a person who transfers him is liable.98
A woman may walk her son if he can pick up one foot and place down the other.99
Halacha 17
A person who transfers a living child with a purse hanging around his neck is liable, because of the purse, for the purse is not considered to be subsidiary to the child.100 If, however, one transfers an adult who is wearing clothes and rings on his hands, one is not liable, for everything is considered to be subsidiary to him. If, by contrast, his garments were folded [and held] on his shoulder,101 a person who carries him is liable.
Halacha 18
[A person who transfers] a live locust of the smallest size [is liable].102 If it is dead, [he is liable for transferring an amount] the size of a dried fig.103 [For transferring] "a bird of the vineyards,"104 [one is liable for transferring] even the smallest amount, regardless of whether it is alive or dead, since it is preserved for medicinal105 purposes.106 The same applies in all similar cases.
The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring [flesh from] a human corpse, [flesh from] the carcass of an animal, or [flesh from] a dead crawling animal107 is the same as the minimum amount of these substances capable of imparting ritual impurity: From a human corpse108 and from an animal carcass,109 the size of an olive. From a crawling animal,110 the size of a lentil.
Halacha 19
If there is exactly an olive-sized portion [of an animal carcass in one place] and a person removes a portion half the size of an olive111 from it, he is liable. [This decision is rendered,] because his actions are effective in reducing [the amount of impure substance to the extent] that the minimum amount that can convey impurity is no longer present.
If, however, he removes a quantity aproximately half the size of an olive from a quantity that is one and a half times the size of an olive, he is not liable.112 The same principles apply with regard to other sources of impurity.
Halacha 20
When does [the abovementioned rule,] that a person is liable only when he transfers the minimum of a standard measure of a substance, apply? When the person transfers the substance without any specific intent.113 If, however, a person transfers a [seed] to sow,114 or a substance for medicinal purposes, to show as an example, or the like,115 he is liable for the slightest amount.
Halacha 21
Should a person who stores a substance to use as seed, or to use for medicinal purposes, or a substance to be shown as a sample, [afterwards,] forget the reason for which he stored the substance,116 and remove it117 without any specific intent,118 he is liable regardless of its size.119 Another person, by contrast, is not liable [if he transfers this article] unless it is of the prescribed measure.120
If after transferring the article [for the intent he originally had], the person throws it into a storeroom, even if it is [set aside] in a distinct place,121 his original intent is considered to have been nullified. Therefore, if he brings in the article afterwards, he is not liable unless it is of the prescribed measure.
Halacha 22
When an entity is not usually stored away,122 nor is it fit to be stored away123 - e.g., a woman's menstrual discharge - a person who stores it and then transfers it is liable.124 Other people, by contrast, are exempt for [transferring] such an article, for [in general] one is not liable unless one transfers an article that is fit to be stored and that people generally store.
Halacha 23
A person who transfers half125 of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable.126 Similarly, a person who performs half the measure of any of the other [forbidden] labors is not liable.
If a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, he is liable.127 If, however, he picks up the first half before he places down the second half, it is as if [the first half] were burned,128 and he is not liable.
When a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, passing it over the first [half without placing it on the ground], he is liable [if the second half] is [held] within three handbreadths of the first half.129 [The rationale is] that transferring is considered equivalent to placing the object down on a substance.
Halacha 24
[When a person] transfers half the prescribed measure [of a substance], and afterwards transfers another half of the prescribed measure [of that substance] to the same domain in a single period of unawareness, he is liable.132
[Different rules apply if] he transfers [the two half-measures] to two different domains. If there is a domain into which one would be liable [for transferring an article interposed] between [the two domains], one is not liable [for transferring these two halves].133 If there is a carmelit between them, they are considered to be a single domain,134 and [the person who transfers the two half-measures] is liable to bring a sin offering.135
Halacha 25
When a person transfers less than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down, [the substance] swells in size and reaches the prescribed measure [he is not liable].136 Similarly, one is not liable if one transfers more than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down [the substance] diminishes in size and becomes less than the prescribed measure.
Halacha 26
[The following rule applies when] a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it,137 but before he places it down it diminishes in size: If he [reconsiders and] decides to use it to sow, or for medicinal purposes,138 he is liable, because of the intent he had at the time he placed it down.139
If a person transfers [a quantity of seeds] smaller than the size of a dried fig with the intent of sowing them, but before he places them down, changes his mind and decides to eat them, he is not liable.140 If [the seeds] swell in size before they are placed down and reach the size of a dried fig before141 he changes his mind [and decides to] eat them, he is liable.142 Even if he had not change his mind, he would still have been liable because of his original intent.
Halacha 27
When a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it, it diminishes in size, and then it swells [to the size of a dried fig] again before it is placed down, there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: [Does the fact that in the interim, it was not of sufficient size for its transfer to incur liability cause that liability] to be deferred [forever] or not?143
When a person throws a portion of the food the size of an olive into a house that is impure144 and by doing so, complements the quantity of food145 that was already in the house, causing there to be an amount [of food] the size of an egg [in the impure house], there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: Is he liable for transferring [the portion of] food that is equivalent to the size of an olive, because he completed the measure of food that is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, or is he not liable?146
Halacha 28
A person who transfers less than the standard measure [of a substance] is not liable even though he transfers it in a container. [The rationale is that] the container is subsidiary [to its contents]; [when the person transfers it,] he is concerned not with the container, but with its contents.147
Accordingly, if a person transfers a man who is alive and who is not bound on a bed, he is not liable,148 for the bed is considered to be subsidiary to the man. These principles apply in all similar situations.
A person who transfers a perfumer's box is liable for only a single [sin offering], although it contains many different types [of scents].149 [Similarly,] even if he transfers [several items] in his hand,150 he is liable for only a single sin offering, for [he has performed] a single act of transfer.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
All the authorities agree that a person is not liable until he transfers an amount of a substance large enough to be of benefit to a person, and that it is forbidden to transfer any article regardless of its size. The commentaries question, however, whether transferring less than a beneficial amount is forbidden according to Torah law or whether the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin.
Liability for most of the prohibitions of the Torah is associated with a specific measure (שיעור). For example, with regard to the majority of the prohibitions against eating forbidden foods, one is liable only if one eats a k'zayit (a measure of food the size of an olive). Should one eat less than that amount (חצי שיעור), one is considered to have transgressed the Torah's commandment. Nevertheless, one is not liable for punishment. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 3:6, 7:15.)
The Mishneh LaMelech states that this same principle applies with regard to transferring objects on the Sabbath. Although one is liable only for transferring a beneficial amount, transferring any amount is forbidden by the Torah itself.
Note, however, Totza'ot Chayim (8) and others, who explain that according to the Rambam, there is no concept of חצי שיע ור with regard to the prohibition against work on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, a person is liable only for performing מלאכת מחשבת, "purposeful work." If an activity is not in itself beneficial, it does not serve a purpose. Therefore, it is not forbidden by the Torah on the Sabbath.
Kinat Eliyahu notes that in Halachah 23, the Rambam states that "A person who transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable." According to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the term "is not liable" (פטור) indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages. Significantly, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, loc. cit.,and in other places where the Rambam discusses this issue, he uses the term אסור, "forbidden." Thus the use of the term פטור in regard to the Sabbath laws clearly indicates a difference. See also S'dei Chemed, Klallim, Ma'areches Chatzi Shiur.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 9, and notes.
|
| 3. |
In this and in the following halachot, the Rambam proceeds to list the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring particular substances. As explained in Halachot 20-21, this applies when one transfers an object without any specific intent. If, however, one intends to use the article one transfers for a specific purpose, one is liable for transferring even a smaller amount.
|
| 4. |
As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, he considers a dried fig to be one-third the size of an egg. (As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, there are differing opinions regarding this measure.) Eating a smaller amount of food would not be significant at all. Therefore, one is not liable.
|
| 5. |
I.e., it is not that one must transfer an amount equal to the size of a dried fig from one particular type of food. Even if one transfers this amount from a combination of different foods, one is liable.
|
| 6. |
For they are not food.
|
| 7. |
Shabbat 8:1 states "wine, enough to mix a cup." In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that a cup refers to the cup over which the grace after meals was recited, which must contain a revi'it. The wines of the Talmudic period were stronger, and it was customary to mix three portions of water to every portion of wine.
|
| 8. |
Tosafot 76b defines this as מלא לוגמיו, "a cheekful." The Maggid Mishneh, however, explains that a smaller measure is intended.
|
| 9. |
The popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.) mentions "river water" instead of "dew." Rav Kapach explains, however, that this is an erroneous translation of the Arabic, and there, too, the Rambam's intent is "dew."
|
| 10. |
Rav Moshe Cohen objects to the fact that the Rambam mentioned a measure that is not spoken of in the Babylonian Talmud. The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam's source is in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 8:1), which he favors in this instance, because there is a difference of opinion on this matter in the Babylonian Talmud.
|
| 11. |
This represents somewhat of a new concept, because generally the Sages followed the principle (Shabbat 78a) that whenever an object has both an uncommon use and a common use, we follow the more lenient measure. For this reason, kosher milk, although just as beneficial as an eyewash as non-kosher milk, is considered to be a food. Accordingly, it is given a more lenient measure.
If so, the fact that honey is considered to be a salve instead of food raises questions. The Talmud, however, explains that since honey is also very commonly used as a salve, there is no difficulty.
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8), the Rambam interprets this is as sores that come from improper amputations. (Note Rav Kapach's translation, which differs slightly from the standard text.)
|
| 13. |
This is useful for mixing clay for building (Shabbat 78a).
|
| 14. |
This is the most common use for this substance.
|
| 15. |
A larger measure than stated previously. Bean straw is harder than grain straw and is therefore given to camels, who have stronger jaws and larger mouths.
|
| 16. |
This reflects a general principle applicable with regard to the minimum measures for which one is liable for transferring: When a person has an individual desire for an object that makes it beneficial for him, he is liable even though most people would not use that object for that purpose. (See Halachah 20.)
|
| 17. |
This refers to softer straw that need not be chewed as forcefully as the straw from grain mentioned at the beginning of the halachah ( Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 7:4). Hence, it is suitable for smaller animals with smaller and less-powerful mouths.
|
| 18. |
A lamb's mouthful is equal to the size of a dried fig. Nevertheless, our Sages speak in terms of a lamb so that we will understand the motivating principle for this measure (Tosafot, Shabbat76a).
|
| 19. |
This is the smallest measure in this halachah.
|
| 20. |
I.e., the leaves that sprout above ground (Tosefot Yom Tov, Shabbat 7:4).
|
| 21. |
Since the cow will not normally eat the bean straw, the amount of straw the person has taken out is not beneficial. Hence, he is not l iable.
|
| 22. |
For the camel will eat the grain straw. Thus, the person has taken out an amount of fodder that will be beneficial.
|
| 23. |
This is the food that requires the least heat to cook (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 8:5).
|
| 24. |
The egg will then cook faster. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 25. |
In the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), he mentions that the pot is already preheated, so that the wood must produce sufficient heat to cook the egg alone, and not to warm the pot as well.
|
| 26. |
In the Talmudic era, it was common for the point of a reed to be sharpened to serve as a pen in a manner similar to a quill.
|
| 27. |
I.e., the amount to cook a portion of an egg, as mentioned in the beginning of the halachah.
|
| 28. |
The rationale is that all spices serve a similar purpose (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 9:5).
|
| 29. |
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) explains that this does not refer to the species of pepper used as a spice (for if so, there is no reason to differentiate between it and other spices), but rather to a different species, which is used as a breath freshener.
|
| 30. |
See the notes on Chapter 5, Halachah 10, regarding our translation of the name of this substance.
|
| 31. |
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) states that this was used as a remedy for headaches. Even the slightest amount was beneficial.
|
| 32. |
For people will appreciate its fragrance.
|
| 33. |
For people will appreciate the removal of an unpleasant odor. Rashi (Shabbat 90a) offers a different interpretation.
|
| 34. |
This also has a pleasant fragrance (Rashi).
|
| 35. |
Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:6), which notes that these metals are mentioned in connection with spices and explains that this refers to parts of a utensil used for crushing spices. Even a small portion of metal is beneficial, because it can be fashioned into a needle or pin.
|
| 36. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:15.
|
| 37. |
See Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:3-4.
|
| 38. |
As mentioned in the sources cited in the previous two notes, we are obligated to show respect for even the slightest piece of any of these articles and entomb them, rather than allow them to be discarded as trash. Accordingly, even the smallest amount is considered significant. Hence, one is liable for transferring it on the Sabbath.
|
| 39. |
For it may be used for cooking, or kindling a fire.
|
| 40. |
Beitzah 39a explains that a flame has no substance. Hence, one is not liable. This applies, however, only when the person carries only a flame and not the coal, or the piece of wood that is burning.
|
| 41. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), the Rambam interprets this as referring to carrot seeds, turnip seeds, or onion seeds. (We have used Rav Kapach's translation which differs slightly from the standard text.)
|
| 42. |
Were the seeds fit for human consumption, the minimum measure for which one would be liable would be the size of a dried fig. We assume that the primary reason for which a person would transfer seeds is to serve as food. Since these seeds, by contrast, are not fit for human consumption, they are given a smaller measure.
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) differs and explains that this law applies even to seeds that are fit for human consumption. Although these seeds are also fit to be eaten, a person usually takes them out with the intent of sowing them.
|
| 43. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), where he interprets the Mishnaic phrase, פחות מכגרוגרת in this fashion. Note the Mayim Chayim, which interprets this as referring to a k'zayit.
|
| 44. |
Since these seeds were more valuable than those of most garden vegetables, they were assigned a smaller measure.
|
| 45. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam explains that bran is placed on the opening of the crucible during the smelting process. Rav Kapach explains (based on his experience as a jeweler) that the bran is intended to burn, and in that process to clear away impurities that cloud the smelter's vision.
|
| 46. |
Which grow in vineyards. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shvi'it 7:5).
|
| 47. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pe'ah 6:10), the Rambam defines luf as a sub-species of onion.
|
| 48. |
A species of beans.
|
| 49. |
The commentaries note that although the Rambam's statements are based on the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:8, they are problematic, for there is another Tosefta (Ma'aser Sheni 1:13) that appears to be a direct contradiction. The difficulty is intensified by the fact that the Rambam also quotes the latter Tosefta in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:8. It is possible, however, to explain the contradiction based on the possibility that in our halachah, the word ימתיקו, translated as "become sweet," is a euphemism and means "become bitter." See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin1:14 and Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:6, where the Rambam mentions similar subjects, and the Responsa of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1425) and the Merkevet HaMishneh, who offer possible resolutions.
|
| 50. |
Shabbat 90b quotes a similar, but slightly different passage from the Tosefta. We can assume that the Rambam's text of that passage differed from the one in our text of the Talmud.
|
| 51. |
The amount necessary to cook an egg, as mentioned in Halachah 4.
|
| 52. |
The seeds were used as a primitive calculator. Rashi (Shabbat 90b) explains that when transactions were made, a seed was used as a symbol for a gold coin.
|
| 53. |
I.e., to use in the purification process of a metzora or a person who came into contact with a human corpse. (See Leviticus 14:6 and Numbers 19:18.)
|
| 54. |
Isatis is a substance which produces an indigo dye. Similarly, nut shells and pomegranate shells are used to produce dyes.
|
| 55. |
A root that produces a red dye.
|
| 56. |
This represents a difference between the Rambam's interpretation of Shabbat 9:5 and that of other commentaries, including Rashi and Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro. Instead of stating בגד קטן כסבכה, as in the Rambam's version of the Mishnah, the text quoted by the latter authorities states בגד קטן בסבכה, "a small cloth in the hairnet," referring not to the entire hairnet, but to one cloth within it.
|
| 57. |
Note Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 9:37, which states that aged urine is one of the cleansing agents used to determine whether a stain is blood or not.
|
| 58. |
These are also cleansing agents and are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah (loc. cit.).
|
| 59. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3) states that one is liable for transferring an amount of ink sufficient to write two letters. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) states that one is not liable unless one transfers this amount of ink while it is on the pen. Otherwise, there is a doubt (as reflected in the following clause), for it is difficult for all the ink that is in an inkwell to be picked up by a pen.
|
| 60. |
The person is not liable for transferring the quill or the inkwell, for they are considered secondary to the ink. As the Rambam states in Halachah 28, when a person transfers a measure for which he is not liable in a utensil, he is not liable for transferring the utensil, since it is considered secondary to its contents.
|
| 61. |
The hanachah without which one is not liable for transferring.
|
| 62. |
He is not liable for transferring. He is, however, liable for writing.
|
| 63. |
At no one time did he transfer the minimum measure for which he would be held liable, for by the time he transfers the second portion of ink, part of the first portion will have dried. Therefore, he remains exempt (Rashi, Shabbat 80a).
|
| 64. |
כחול, rendered by some translators as "stibium," was reputed to have medicinal properties in addition to its cosmetic qualities. Even if only one of a person's eyes was affected, it would be common for him to apply כחול to that eye alone. Hence, one is liable for transferring the amount necessary to paint one eye.
|
| 65. |
Rashi, Shabbat 80a, relates that modest women would veil their faces entirely, exposing only one eye to enable them to see. They would, however, paint this eye.
|
| 66. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to small villages, where frivolity was not commonplace. Therefore, women would walk outside with their faces uncovered. Hence, if a woman painted her eyes for cosmetic purposes, she would paint both eyes. Note the Ra'avad, who offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage.
|
| 67. |
Rashi (Shabbat 78a) interprets this as referring to a phial of mercury that is sealed closed with these substances. Afterwards, a hole is made in the sulfur or tar with a pin through which the mercury can be poured, but through which it will not spill excessively if the b ottle falls on its side. The Meiri interprets the Talmud as referring to making a seal for a jug of wine.
|
| 68. |
The Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to stopping a hole in a wine barrel.
|
| 69. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a board with paste taken into a dovecote on which the fledglings perch and are thus captured. Rashi (Shabbat 80a) interprets this as a board with paste used to catch wild fowl.
|
| 70. |
A coin of the Talmudic period with a width of a handbreadth, approximately 8 cm. according to Shiurei Torah.
|
| 71. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:5), where he emphasizes that the Hebrew אדמה means both "earth" and "red."
|
| 72. |
In the Talmudic period, letters were sealed with clay. This refers to a seal like that of a notary placed on a letter to testify to its authenticity.
|
| 73. |
Rav Kapach notes that in this instance the Rambam does not state "a goldsmith's crucible," for crucibles used for smelting other metals need not be as heat-resistant as those used for gold.
|
| 74. |
Shabbat 80b relates that plaster is mixed with sand in order to strengthen the structure.
|
| 75. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4). Rashi (Shabbat 78b) interprets חרסית as "crushed brick."
|
| 76. |
Shabbat 80b states that hair was mixed with clay when a crucible was fashioned for smelting gold.
|
| 77. |
Shabbat 80b states that lime would be applied to the bodies of young girls, one limb at a time. Rashi states it would make their skin red. Tosafot maintains that it would whiten their skin.
|
| 78. |
As Leviticus 17:13 states that after a bird or a wild animal is slaughtered, its blood must be covered with earth or ashes. (See Hilchot Shechitah, Chapter 14.)
|
| 79. |
For in this way, the pebble will be beneficial in shooing the animal (Shabbat 81a).
|
| 80. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), the Rambam gives a more specific definition, mentioning an Arabic term that Rav Kapach identifies as cypress.
|
| 81. |
This is a smaller measure than the amount sufficient to make a handle. Nevertheless, rope would not be used for this purpose, because it is coarse and might damage the utensil (Shabbat 78b).
|
| 82. |
To use as a filter (ibid.).
|
| 83. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:6) mentions sharpening a needle. The Talmud (Shabbat 81a) mentions cutting threads. Apparently, the Rambam considers the two measures to be identical.
|
| 84. |
Rashi, Shabbat 90b, states that these hairs were used by bird hunters.
|
| 85. |
Rashi (ibid.) states these hairs are used in sewing leather.
|
| 86. |
From the Rambam's statements, it appears that his interpretation - a nd perhaps even the wording in his text - of Shabbat 90b was different from Rashi's interpretation of our version of that passage. (See the commentaries of the Meiri and Rabbenu Chanan'el on that passage.)
|
| 87. |
The Rambam's source appears to be the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:3 which states m'lo hasit kafulwhich, as mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 10, is equivalent to four handbreadths.
|
| 88. |
See Hilchot Keilim 22:1.)
|
| 89. |
Fabric made from camel's hair and other fibers that are rough and are therefore generally not used to make garments for humans.
|
| 90. |
See Hilchot Keilim 23:3.
|
| 91. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3), the Rambam interprets this as referring to the wrapping in which the amulet was held, and not to the amulet itself.
|
| 92. |
Although at present, the word k'laf is commonly translated as "parchment," the Rambam is referring to a more specific meaning. In Hilchot Tefillin 1:6-8, he differentiates between three types of parchment, stating:
|
| 93. |
This is the shortest passage of the four passages included in the tefillin. In the head-tefillin, each of these passages is written on a separate piece of parchment.
|
| 94. |
This appears to be the Rambam's interpretation of the statement of the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), "One who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable." Since the Mishnah already stated that a person who transfers a piece of paper large enough to write such a receipt is liable, it goes without saying that a person who transfers an unused receipt is liable. When explicitly telling us that a person is liable for transferring such a receipt, the Mishnah is obviously referring to a receipt that has already been used. See Shabbat 78b.
|
| 95. |
Note Shabbat 78b, 79a which discusses the propriety of maintaining possession of such a promissory note.
|
| 96. |
Since the paper has already been erased, it is no longer fit for writing. Therefore, it is considered to be suitable for other purposes and requires a larger measurement.
|
| 97. |
Shabbat 94a quotes Rabbi Natan as stating, "A living creature carries itself." Although the Sages differ with him, their objections concern animals only, for the latter resist being carried and struggle to free themselves. In contrast, a human being assists in being carried. This is obvious from the fact that it is far easier to carry a living person than the same amount of "dead weight."
It must be emphasized that although there is no prohibition from the Torah against carrying a living person, our Sages forbade this. (See Mishnah Berurah 308:153,154.)
|
| 98. |
For in this instance, the person being carried is unable to assist the one carrying him.
|
| 99. |
I.e., the child must propel himself forward. His mother may not, however, drag him (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:41). Note the Mishnah Berurah 308:154, which states that the principle, "A living being carries itself," does not apply to a child unless he is old enough to take steps by himself.
|
| 100. |
As reflected in Halachah 28, when a person transfers two articles, one of primary importance and one of secondary importance, whether or not he is liable depends on the article of primary importance. If he would be liable for transferring this article by itself, he is liable. If not, he is not liable. The article of secondary importance is of no significance whatsoever.
When does this apply? When the article of secondary importance is subsidiary to the article of primary importance. If they are, as in the example cited in this halachah, two unrelated objects, the person is liable for transferring the article of secondary importance.
|
| 101. |
They are considered to be separate objects, unrelated to the person who is holding them.
|
| 102. |
Shabbat 90b states that locusts are often used as playthings for children. Hence, regardless of the locust's size, one is liable.
The Rambam's ruling is quoted from the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), which also mentions two opinions: One that maintains that this applies only to a kosher locust, and that of Rabbi Yehudah, which states that it applies to all locusts, whether kosher or nonkosher. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yehudah's opinion.
From the fact that the Rambam does not mention whether the locust must be kosher or not in this halachah, the Merkevet HaMishneh concludes that he has reversed his opinion and accepts Rav Yehudah's view. Others differ and maintain that this is clarified by the second clause, which mentions "[an amount] the size of a dried fig" - i.e., the measure applying to food. Just as the second clause applies only to kosher locusts, so too, does the first clause.
|
| 103. |
As mentioned in the previous note, this is the minimum measurement for food.
|
| 104. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:21 the Rambam (as does Rabbenu Chanan'el and the Aruch) defines this as a species of kosher locusts. Others define it as a bird.
|
| 105. |
Shabbat 10:1 states that one is liable for transferring even the slightest amount of any substance that is retained for its medicinal purposes.
|
| 106. |
According to Shabbat 90b, partaking of such a creature enhances one's intellectual capacities.
|
| 107. |
Shabbat 93b-94a states that Rabbi Shimon exempts a person from liability in this instance, for in contrast to other situations, the person is not removing the impure object because he desires it itself, but because he desires the place to be free of impurity. Hence, this is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, a labor that is not performed for the same purpose for which the labor was performed in the construction of the Sanctuary. In the construction of the Sanctuary, articles were transfered because they were, themselves, desired. In contrast, in this instance, the person's intent is to remove impurity. Nevertheless, as the Rambam rules in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, one is liable for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
|
| 108. |
See Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:1-2.
|
| 109. |
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 1:1.
|
| 110. |
More specifically, this refers to the eight species mentioned in Leviticus 11:29- 30. (See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:2.)
|
| 111. |
In this instance, the phrase "half the size of an olive" is not intended to serve as an exact measure. The intent is any measure that will reduce the size of the portion of the animal carcass to less than the size of an olive. The same principles apply to flesh from a human corpse.
|
| 112. |
For an amount large enough to convey ritual impurity still remains intact.
|
| 113. |
Since even the small amount of the substance the person transfers is valuable to him, he has a reason for transferring it. Accordingly, his act is considered to be "purposeful." See the notes to Halachah 1.
|
| 114. |
The commentaries note that Halachah 6 mentions taking seeds for sowing and mentions specific measures. Among the possible resolutions is that there is ordinarily a measure for seeds as well. This halachah, however, specifically focuses on the exceptions to the general rule, and there are indeed individuals who will sow a single seed in a flower pot (Rav Kapach, Kinat Eliyahu).
|
| 115. |
Note the Mishneh LaMelech, who states that with this statement the Rambam does not intend to negate totally the measures he mentioned previously. For example, if a person transfers food, he is not liable unless it is the size of a dried fig. Even if a particular person desires to eat a smaller amount, that intent is not considered significant, since most people would not appreciate such an amount. In this halachah, the Rambam is stating that in certain instances, as in the examples he mentions, there is a particular intent which requires merely a tiny amount of a substance to be accomplished. In such an instance, the person is liable for transferring an object of this small size.
|
| 116. |
Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat10:1).
|
| 117. |
On the Sabbath (ibid.).
|
| 118. |
I.e., even if he forgot the intent for which he originally stored away the article.
|
| 119. |
By setting the article aside for a specific purpose, the person shows that it is important to him, regardless of its size. Therefore, if he later transfers the article, he is liable (Shabbat 90b, 91a).
|
| 120. |
I.e., the intent a particular individual has for an article is important regarding the measure for which he is liable for transferring that article. It does not affect the status of that article vis-a-visothers.
|
| 121. |
As opposed to being mixed together with the other objects in the storeroom. This might be considered to be a sign that it is being saved for a specific purpose.
|
| 122. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:3), the Rambam interprets this phrase as excluding an article that is commonplace and easily obtainable. Therefore, it is not stored away. [Note Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro and Rashi (Shabbat 75b), who interpret this as excluding an amount of a substance smaller than the prescribed measure.]
|
| 123. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this excludes objects that will spoil if stored.
|
| 124. |
By storing the article in question, the person indicates that he considers it important. Therefore, he is liable for transferring it.
|
| 125. |
The intent is any amount less than the full measure.
|
| 126. |
See the notes on the first halachah of this chapter which discuss whether the prohibition against this activity stems from the Torah itself or is Rabbinic in origin. As mentioned there, according to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the word פטור indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages.
|
| 127. |
For he has transferred a full measure of the article in question. As the Maggid Mishnehmentions, it is clear from the following halachah that this refers to actions performed in a single period of unawareness.
|
| 128. |
Since a full measure of the entity in question was never transferred into the second domain and placed down there at a single time, the person is not liable.
|
| 129. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, an article held within three handbreadths of a second article is considered as having been placed down on that article, as implied by Chapter 13, Halachah 6. Therefore, the two half-measures of the substance in question are considered to have been placed down in the same place. Hence, the person who placed them down is liable. See the commentary of Rabbenu Chananel to Shabbat 80a.
|
| 130. |
Even if it passes within three handbreadths of the ground, as long as it does not come to rest even momentarily (see Chapter 13, Halachah 16, and notes).
|
| 131. |
As mentioned in the notes on the halachah cited above, it would appear that the object would have to come to rest on a substance four handbreadths by four handbreadths, or come to rest within three handbreadths of the ground.
|
| 132. |
One is liable to bring a sin offering for performing a forbidden labor only if one performed the labor without intent to violate the Torah's commandments. Furthermore, if in the midst of one's performance of a forbidden activity, one becomes conscious of the prohibition involved, even if one loses awareness immediately afterwards and completes the measure of forbidden activity without the desire to violate the law, one is not liable. (See Hilchot Shegagot 6:8.)
|
| 133. |
As long as the two half-measures were taken from the same original domain and placed down together in the same domain, they can be combined. If, however, a totally separate domain interposes between them, the two actions cannot be considered to be complementary.
|
| 134. |
For according to the Torah, a carmelit is considered to be a makom patur. (See the notes on Chapter 14, Halachah 1). Hence, it is not considered to be an interruption between the two domains.
|
| 135. |
The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:11. (See the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh on that halachah.)
|
| 136. |
As explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 5, the forbidden labor of transferring involves removing an article from one domain and placing it down in another domain. A sin offering is not required unless both activities are performed in a forbidden manner.
|
| 137. |
Thus the akirah (removal) of the article is performed when the article is of sufficient size to incur liability (Halachah 1).
|
| 138. |
In which case, he is liable, regardless of the size of the article (Halachah 20).
|
| 139. |
Since at the time of both the removal and the placing down (hanachah) of the substance, its size was sufficient to incur liability according to the intent which the person had in mind, he is liable. The fact that he experienced a change of mind in the interim is not of consequence.
|
| 140. |
For at the time he placed the object down, it was not of sufficient size to incur liability.
|
| 141. |
Based on the following halachah, it is clear that the increase in the seed's size must take place before the person's change of mind.
|
| 142. |
For at the time the article was removed from its original place and it the time it was placed down, it was of sufficient size to incur liability.
|
| 143. |
The question of the Rambam (based on Shabbat 91b) is whether the fact that the object was too small for its transfer to incur liability in the time between its akirah and its hanachah causes these actions to be considered as unconnected or not.
Note the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Hilchot Sh'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:13, which quotes the distinction made by Rav Yitzchak Korcus between that halachah and the present one.
|
| 144. |
Because of the presence of a corpse or the presence of tzara'at.
|
| 145. |
The Maggid Mishneh questions why the Rambam changes the wording used in the source for this teaching (Shabbat, loc. cit.), which mentions food that is terumah and applies this concept to all foods. The Mishneh LaMelech, however, resolves this difficulty, explaining that according to the Rambam's conception of the laws of ritual impurity (see Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 4:1), there is no difference between terumah and other foods.
|
| 146. |
The commentaries cite this passage as a source, teaching that a dried fig is larger than an olive. Ordinarily, a person who transfers an amount of food the size of an olive is not liable. Nevertheless, this instance is different, because of the laws of ritual impurity.
Food cannot impart ritual impurity to other substances unless a portion equivalent to the size of an egg is present. Thus, before the person threw the food into the house, there was not sufficient food there to impart impurity, and the food he threw in completed that measure. Hence, the Rambam (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.) asks whether the fact that the transfer of the food is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity is of consequence with regard to the Sabbath laws.
|
| 147. |
Since the container is desired only because of its function as an accessory for its contents, it is not considered to be an entity in its own right. Unless the person has a desire for it itself, he is not liable for transferring it, regardless of its size. (See Shabbat 93b.)
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. XVII, p. 48, Vol. XIX, p. 193) focuses on the homiletic dimensions of this halachah, interpreting it as an indication of how an object's spiritual qualities are of such primacy that they eclipse totally its material dimensions.
|
| 148. |
This ruling depends on the principle stated in Halachah 16: "A living creature carries itself." As mentioned in that halachah, this principle does not apply if the person is bound. Since the person would not be liable for carrying the man, he is also not liable for carrying the bed on which he is lying.
|
| 149. |
Although the box contains several distinct entities, the person is considered to have performed a single forbidden activity. Therefore, he is not liable for a separate sin offering for every article he transfers.
|
| 150. |
With this clause, the Rambam indicates that this ruling is not dependent on the principle (see Chapter 12, Halachah 11) that the contents of a box are considered to be a single entity, but on a different rationale.
|
Chapter Nineteen
Halacha 1
We may not go out [wearing] any weaponry on the Sabbath.1 [The following rules apply should one] go out [wearing weaponry]: If they are objects that are worn as garments - e.g., a coat of mail, a helmet, or iron boots2 - one is not liable. If, however, one goes out [carrying]3 articles that are not worn as garments - e.g., a spear, a sword, a bow, a round shield4 or a triangular shield - he is liable.5
Halacha 2
We may not go out wearing a sandal studded with nails to fasten it.6 Even on festivals, the Sages decreed that we should not go out wearing [such sandals].7
It is permitted to go out wearing a belt with pieces of gold and silver imbedded into it as kings wear, for this is a piece of jewelry, and it is permitted [to wear] all jewelry. [This license is granted] provided [the belt] does not hang loosely, lest it fall in the public domain and one go and bring it.8
Halacha 3
A ring that has a seal9 is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a man, but not for a woman. A ring without a seal, by contrast, is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman,10 but not for a man. Accordingly, a woman who goes out wearing a ring that has a seal and a man who goes out wearing a ring without a seal are liable.11
Why are they liable? They did not transfer them in an ordinary manner12 - i.e., it is not an ordinary practice for a man to wear a ring on his finger that is not appropriate for him, nor for a woman to wear a ring on her finger that is not appropriate for her. [Nevertheless,] there are times when a man gives his ring to his wife to hide at home and she places it on her finger while she is walking. Similarly, there are times when a woman gives her ring to her husband to take to a jeweler to fix, and he places it on his finger while he is walking to the jeweler's store. Therefore, [although the rings are not appropriate for the individuals mentioned above, because they do occasionally wear such rings,] they are considered to have transferred them in an ordinary manner. Accordingly, they are liable.
Halacha 4
Although a ring that does not have a seal is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman, a woman should not go out wearing such a ring, lest she take it off in the public domain and show it to her friends, as women often do.13 If, however, she went out wearing such a ring, she is not liable.14
A man, by contrast, may go out wearing a ring that has a seal, for it is considered to be a piece of jewelry for him and it is not usual practice for a man to show off [his jewelry to others].15 It has, [nevertheless,] become accepted practice for people to go out without wearing any rings at all.
Halacha 5
A woman who goes out [wearing] a pin with an eye is liable,16 while a man is not liable.17 A man who goes out [wearing] a pin without an eye is liable,18 while a woman is not liable, for this is considered to be a piece of jewelry for her.19 She is prohibited against wearing it only because of a decree lest she [take it off and] show it to her friends.
The [following] general principles apply: Whenever a person goes out wearing an item that is not considered to be jewelry for him, and it is not [worn as] a garment, he is liable if he transfers it in an ordinary manner.
Whenever a man goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that hangs loosely and could easily fall and thus cause him to bring it through the public domain, and similarly, whenever a woman goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that she is likely to take off and show [to her friends], they are not liable.
Whenever an adornment that is not likely to fall, nor is it likely to be shown to others, [a woman] is permitted to go out [wearing] it. Therefore, she may go out [wearing] a bracelet that is placed on the forearm or [a garter that is placed on] the thigh if it clings tightly to the flesh and will not slip off.20 These rules apply in other similar situations.
Halacha 6
A woman should not go out with woolen strands, linen strands, or straps attached to her head lest she remove them when she immerses herself21 and carry them in the public domain.
She should not go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead,22 nor with bangles of gold that hang from the frontlet on her cheeks if they are not sewn together.23Nor may [she go out wearing] a crown of gold on her head,24 nor with the ankle chains worn by maidens so that they will not take long strides and thus destroy [the signs of] their virginity.
It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles lest they fall and one carry them by hand.
Halacha 7
A woman should not go out [wearing] a necklace,25 a nose ring,26 a flask of perfume27 attached to her forearm, a small round pouch28 in which balsam oil29is placed, referred to as a cochellet.30
Nor should she wear a wig that will give the appearance that she has a full head of hair,31 nor a woolen pad that goes around her face,32 nor a false tooth, nor a golden crown that she places over a black tooth or a red blemish that she has on her teeth. She may go out with a silver tooth, because this is not obvious.
All these prohibitions were instituted lest {the article fall and [the woman] carry it in her hand or}33 lest she remove it and show it to a friend.
Halacha 8
Whenever the Sages forbade wearing an item in the public domain, it is forbidden to go out [wearing] that item even in a courtyard for which there is noeruv.34 An exception is made with regard to a face pad and a wig; permission is granted to go out [wearing] them to a courtyard where there is no eruv so that [the woman] would not appear unattractive to her husband.
A woman who goes out [carrying] an empty flask with no perfume is liable.
Halacha 9
A woman may go out [wearing] strands of hair that are attached to her head.35Water passes through them and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance were she to immerse herself. [Consequently,] she will not remove them. Hence, there is no necessity to prohibit [wearing them lest she remove them] and carry them into the public domain.
This applies regardless of whether [the strands of hair were taken from] the woman's own tresses, those of another woman, or from an animal.36 An elderly woman should not, however, go out [wearing strands of hair from] a young woman, for they are becoming to her, [and we fear that] she might remove them and show them to a friend. A young woman, by contrast, may go out [wearing] strands of hair from an elderly woman.37
Any woven hair-covering may be worn.
Halacha 10
A woman may go out [wearing] strands38 [tied around] her neck, because she does not tie them tightly,39 and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance [with regard to ritual immersion]. If, however, they are colored, she may not go out wearing them, lest she show them to a friend.
A woman may go out wearing a golden diadem, since these are worn only by dignified woman who are not accustomed to removing [their jewelry] and showing them to their friends.40 A woman may also go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead with bangles of gold [that hang from the frontlet], provided they are sewn into her head-covering so that they do not fall.41 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 11
A women may go out with wadding in her ear42 provided it is attached to her ear, with wadding in her sandal43 provided it is attached to her sandal, and with wadding for her menstrual discharge44 even though it is not attached. [The latter rule applies] even if it has a handle. Since it is repulsive, even if it falls, she would not carry it.
Halacha 12
She may go out with pepper, a grain of salt, or any other substance that is placed in the mouth [to prevent] bad breath. She should not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself.45
Women may go out [wearing] slivers of wood in their ears,46 or with bells47 on their necks or garments, and with a cloak fastened with a make-shift button.48
Indeed, a woman may fasten her cloak in this manner using a stone or a nut49on the Sabbath and go out, provided she does not [use this leniency as] a ruse and use a nut for this purpose in order to bring it to her young son. Similarly, she should not fasten her cloak in this manner using a coin,50 for it is forbidden to carry it. If her cloak was fastened [using a coin],51 she may go out wearing it.
Halacha 13
A man may go out to the public domain with a sliver of wood in his teeth52 or in his sandal. If, however, it falls, he should not put it back. [He may go out with] wadding or a sponge over a wound,53 provided he does not wind a cord or a string over them. [The latter restriction applies] because he considers the cord or the string as important and they do not assist [the healing of] the wound.54
[He may go out with] a garlic peel or an onion peel on a wound, and with a bandage on a wound. He may open and close [the bandage] on the Sabbath. [He may go out with] a compress, a plaster, or a dressing on a wound. [Similarly, one may go out with] a sela55 on a footsore, a locust's egg,56 a fox's tooth,57 a nail from a gallows,58 and any other entity that is hung on a person's body to [bring] a cure, provided that physicians say that it is effective.59
Halacha 14
[A woman] may go out with a tekumah60 stone or with the weight of a tekumahstone61, which was weighed [and carried] with the intent that it serve as a remedy. This applies not only to a pregnant woman, but to all women, [as a safeguard] lest they become pregnant and miscarry.
One may go out [wearing] an amulet that has proven its efficacy. What is an amulet that has proven its efficacy? [An amulet] that has cured three individuals62 or that was prepared by an individual who cured three people with other amulets. If a person goes out wearing an amulet that has not proved its efficacy, he is not liable.63 [The rationale:] he carried it out as a garment.64Similarly, a person who goes out [wearing] tefillin is not liable.65
Halacha 15
A person who has a wound on his foot may go out [wearing] one sandal on his healthy foot. If, however, a person does not have a wound on his foot, he may not go out [wearing] a single sandal.66
A child67 should not go out [wearing] the sandals of an adult.68 He may, however, go out [wearing] the cloak of an adult. A woman should not go out [on the Sabbath], [wearing] a loose-fitting sandal,69 nor [wearing] a new sandal that she did not wear for even a short period of time before [the commencement of the Sabbath].70
Halacha 16
[A man] may go out [wearing] tufts of flax or a woolen wig worn by men with sores on their heads.73 When does this apply? When he colored them with oil and wound them,74 or he went out [wearing] them [at least] momentarily75 before the commencement of the Sabbath. If, however, he did not perform a deed [that indicated his desire to use these articles], nor did he go out [wearing] them before the Sabbath, it is forbidden for him to go out [wearing] them.
Halacha 17
We may go out [wearing] coarse sackcloth, tent-cloth,76a thick woolen blanket,77or a coarse wrap78 [as protection] against rain.79 We may not, however, go out [wearing] a chest, a container, or a mat, [as protection] against the rain.80
When a pillow and a blanket are soft and thin as garments are, one may go out [wearing] them as a wrap on one's head on the Sabbath. When they are firm, they are considered to be burdens and it is forbidden.
Halacha 18
We may go out with bells woven81 into our clothes.82 A servant83 may go out [wearing] a clay seal84 around his neck,85 but not with a metal seal, lest it fall and he carry it.
[The following rules apply when] a person wraps himself in a tallit86 and folds it, either [holding the folds] in his hand, or [placing them] on his shoulder: If his intent is that [the ends of the garment] should not tear or become soiled, it is forbidden.87 If his intent is for the sake of fashion, since this is the style in which people of his locale wear their clothes, it is permitted.
Halacha 19
A person who goes out [to the public domain] with a garment that is folded and placed on his shoulders is liable. He may, however, go out with a wrap [folded] around his shoulders even though a thread is not tied to his fingers.88
Whenever a wrap does not cover [a person's] head and the majority of his body,89 he is forbidden to go out [wearing it]. A cloth that is worn as a head covering90 that is short and not wide should be tied below one's shoulders. Thus, it will serve as a belt and one will be permitted to go out [wearing] it.
Halacha 20
It is permitted to wrap oneself in a tallit91 that has unwoven strands92 at its edges, even though they are long and do not enhance the appearance of thetallit, because they are considered to be subsidiary to it. The person [wearing the tallit] does not care whether they exist or not.93
Based on the above, a person who goes out [wearing] a tallit whose tzitzit are not halachically acceptable is liable. For these strands are important to him and he is concerned with completing what they are lacking, so that they can be considered to be tzitzit.94
When, however, the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, it is permitted to go out [wearing this garment] during the day and during the night.95 Tzitzit that are halachically acceptable are not considered to be a burden, but rather to be an article that enhances the garment and beautifies it. Were the strands of tzitzitthat are halachically acceptable to be considered a burden, one would be liable [for wearing such a garment] even on the Sabbath day, since a positive commandment [whose negation] is not [punishable by] karet does not supersede the Sabbath [prohibitions].96
Halacha 21
A tailor should not go out on the Sabbath with a needle stuck into his clothes, nor a carpenter with a sliver of wood behind his ear,97 nor a weaver with wool in his ear, nor a carder of flax with a string around his neck, nor a money-changer with a dinar in his ear, nor a dyer with a sample in his ear.
If one [of these individuals] goes out [wearing such an article], he is not liable. Although this is the usual practice for artisans of this craft, [he is not liable,] because he is not considered to have transferred the article in an ordinary manner.98
Halacha 22
A zav99 who goes out with his receptacle is liable, for this is the only way this receptacle is transferred. [He is liable] although he has no need to take out [the receptacle] itself; [he needs it] only to prevent his clothes from being soiled.100For a person who performs a labor is liable even when he has no need for the actual labor he performed.101
Halacha 23
What should a man102 do when he finds tefillin in the public domain on the Sabbath?103 He should wear them in the ordinary fashion, placing the headtefillin on his head and the arm tefillin on his arm, enter a home and remove them there. Afterwards, he should go out, return, put on a second pair, [return to the home,] remove them, and [continue this pattern] until he brings in all [thetefillin].
If there were many pairs of tefillin and there was not enough time to bring them in during the time by wearing them as garments, he should remain [watching] them until [after] nightfall, and bring them in on Saturday night.104 In a time of oppressive decrees,105 when one might fear to linger and watch them until the evening because of the gentiles, he should cover them where they are located, leave them, and proceed [on his way].
Halacha 24
Should he be afraid to wait until after nightfall because of thieves, he should take the entire group at once and carry them less than four cubits at a time, or he should give them to a colleague [standing within four cubits], who in turn will give them to another colleague106 until they reach the courtyard at the extremity of the city.107
When does the above apply? When they are found together with their straps that are tied with the knots with which tefillin are tied, since then they are surelytefillin. If, however, their straps are not tied, one should not pay attention to them.108
Halacha 25
Halacha 26
On Friday, shortly before nightfall, a tailor should not go carrying a needle in his hand,112 nor should a scribe [go out carrying] his pen, lest he forget and transfer it on the Sabbath.
A person is obligated to check his clothes on Friday before nightfall, lest he forget something in them and [inadvertently] transfer it on the Sabbath.
It is permissible to go out wearing tefillin on Friday shortly before sunset. Since a person is obligated to touch his tefillin at all times,113 there is no possibility that he will forget them. If a person forgets and goes out to the public domain [wearing] tefillin,114 [when] he remembers the tefillin on his head, he should cover his head115 until he reaches his home or the house of study.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., this prohibition applies to all weaponry. As the Rambam continues, there are instances where carrying such weaponry violates a Torah prohibition, and other instances where the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
This chapter represents a turning point in the structure of this text. From the middle of Chapter 12 onward, the Rambam has delineated the various factors involved in the forbidden labor of transferring articles from one domain to another. In this halachah, he begins speaking of the Rabbinic safeguards associated with this forbidden labor.
|
| 2. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:2).
|
| 3. |
Even when hanging from one's garments - e.g., a sword in a scabbard attached to one's belt.
|
| 4. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). Rashi (Shabbat 63a) renders this term as "a mace."
|
| 5. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on Shabbat 63a, which mentions a difference of opinion between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer. Our Sages rule that one is liable, while Rabbi Eliezer differs and states that one is not liable for carrying weapons, for they are ornaments, like jewelry.
Our Sages support their position by quoting Isaiah's (2:4) prophecy of the Era of the Redemption, "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares.... Nation shall not lift up sword against nation...." Since weaponry will be nullified in that era of ultimate fulfillment, it is a sign that it is not a true and genuine ornament.
The Lechem Mishneh (in his gloss on Hilchot Teshuvah 8:7) notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. The Talmud associates the opinion of the Sages (which the Rambam accepts) with the conception that Mashiach's coming will initiate a miraculous world order, and Rabbi Eliezer's ruling with the opinion of Shemuel that "there is no difference between the present era and the Messianic era except [for the emancipation from] the dominion of [gentile] powers." In Hilchot Teshuvah 9:2, and more explicitly in Hilchot Melachim 12:1-2, the Rambam explains Shmuel's position, stating:
Nevertheless, this approach does not necessarily contradict the Rambam's rulings here. The Rambam also maintains that war will be nullified in the Messianic era, as he writes (loc. cit.12:5): "In that era, there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition." Nevertheless, its nullification will not come because of miracles that defy the natural order, but because of the reasons he continues to mention in that halachah - that "good will flow in abundance" and "'the world will be filled with the knowledge of God' (Isaiah 11:9)."
|
| 6. |
The Ritba (in his gloss on Shabbat 60a) states that these nails were used to fasten the soles of the sandals to the upper portion.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:2 (based on Shabbat, loc. cit., and Beitzah 14b)], the Rambam explains that in an era of religious oppression, many Jews gathered together for prayer and study in a hidden place. When they heard a noise outside, they suspected that they had been discovered by their enemies and panicked. In the confusion, hundreds were crushed by these nailed sandals.
|
| 7. |
Since these are days of public assembly, our Sages felt that wearing these sandals would arouse disturbing memories of the abovementioned incident.
There is a question whether the prohibitions against wearing such sandals apply at present despite the fact that our nailed sandals are made differently from those of Talmudic times. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi quotes this prohibition in his Halachot. Since he mentions only those laws that are relevant in the post-Talmudic era, this inclusion would seem to imply that the prohibition should be followed now as well. Rabbenu Asher differs. Significantly, Rav Yosef Karo does not mention this prohibition in his Shulchan Aruch, nor does the Ramah refer to it in his gloss on that text.
|
| 8. |
This reason, that perhaps an article will fall and be carried in the public domain, is mentioned several times throughout this chapter and is relevant to both men and women.
|
| 9. |
As reflected by Esther 3:10 and other sources, in Biblical and Talmudic times men wore signet rings, using the seal to authorize their approval of documents.
|
| 10. |
The commentaries draw attention to a problematic statement in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), where he states that a ring without a seal is somewhat like, but not exactly, a piece of jewelry for women.
|
| 11. |
Since these rings are not considered to be jewelry for these individuals, they are considered to be carrying them in the public domain.
|
| 12. |
As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 12-14, a person is liable for transferring an article only when he does so in an ordinary fashion.
|
| 13. |
This point is mentioned several times in this chapter as a rationale for restrictions governing women's wearing jewelry in the public domain.
|
| 14. |
Although all Talmudic authorities prohibit women from wearing jewelry in public on the Sabbath, from the era of the Geonim onward, and particularly in the Ashkenazic community, it has become customary for women to do so. Among the rationales offered by the Rabbis (Tosafot, Shabbat 64b; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 303:18) for this leniency are:
a) Today, there is no concept of a true public domain, for there are no places through which 600,000 people pass at one time. Since the restrictions against carrying in a carmelit are only safeguards against carrying in a public domain, it would be improper to impose a safeguard against carrying in a carmelit, for a safeguard is not instituted to protect a safeguard.
[There are several difficulties with this rationale: Firstly, many Rishonim (including the Rambam) do not accept this principle. Furthermore, today many large metropolises are a public domain according to all views.]
b) The socio-economic climate of the age has changed. In the Talmudic period, most women did not have jewelry, nor did they see their friends that often, nor did they have private places in which to socialize. Therefore, there was reason for the concern that jewelry would be taken off and displayed in the public domain. When the above mentioned conditions changed, this suspicion no longer applied, and there was no reason for this stringency.
|
| 15. |
Indeed, our Sages never imposed any restrictions on men's carrying in the public domain for this reason.
|
| 16. |
Since it has an eye, it is used as a needle for sewing, and therefore is not considered an ornament. Women are liable for transferring them on the Sabbath, because they frequently sew, and often carry needles by sticking them in their clothes. Hence, they are considered to have carried the needle in an ordinary manner.
|
| 17. |
With the exception of a tailor, a man is not liable for carrying a needle stuck in his clothes on the Sabbath, since this is not the ordinary way in which these items are carried.
Our explanation in this and the previous note follows the interpretation of Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son (Birkat Avraham 16). It must be emphasized that the Rambam's rulings in Halachah 21 present a difficulty to this explanation. Rav Kapach offers a resolution to this difficulty by explaining that Halachah 20 refers to a needle which is a symbol of the tailor's trade. Wearing it is not considered to be transferring an article in the ordinary manner. In contrast, the present halachah refers to a functional needle that is carried in a craftsman's garment from time to time.
Significantly, Rashi and other Rishonim interpret Shabbat 62a, the source for this halachah, differently. Their views are given greater emphasis by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim301:8).
|
| 18. |
Since it is not a piece of jewelry for him.
|
| 19. |
Shabbat 60a relates that ordinarily these pins would have a gold plate attached to them. The pointed end of the pin would be stuck into her head-covering, and the plate would hang down over her forehead.
|
| 20. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). As mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:15), there are authorities who forbid the wearing of forearm bracelets.
|
| 21. |
These threads are tied to the woman's hair. Accordingly, they would be considered to be a חציצה, "intervening substance," and would have to be removed before immersion (see Hilchot Mikvaot 1:12, 2:5). The suspicion is that afterwards, they would be carried in the public domain.
|
| 22. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:1 (based on Shabbat 57b), the Rambam describes this as a gold plate extending on the forehead from ear to ear.
|
| 23. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (according to Rav Kapach's translation), which is based on Shabbat 57b], the Rambam adds "and are sewn into her head-covering." Since a woman is not likely to remove her head-covering entirely when her jewelry is sewn into it, we do not suspect that she will take it off and show it to her friends in the public domain. (See Halachah 10.)
This interpretation (which resolves the question the Ra'avad raises in his gloss on this halachah and which reflects the interpretation of our Sages, Shabbat 57b) presents difficulties, because of the Rambam's final clause, "It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles, lest they fall and one carry them by hand." Note the commentaries of the Merkevet HaMishneh and theSeder HaMishneh, who address themselves to this difficulty.
|
| 24. |
A golden crown engraved with an impression of the city of Jerusalem.
|
| 25. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), the Rambam interprets this as a necklace with golden beads. Rashi (Shabbat 57b, 59b) interprets this as referring to a golden choker necklace. (See the notes on Halachah 4 regarding the Rabbinic opinions regarding wearing jewelry at present.)
|
| 26. |
Significantly, even in Talmudic times earrings were permitted. Rashi explains that this leniency was granted because earrings are difficult to remove. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 303:8) offers a different rationale: that a woman's head covering would cover her ears as well. Hence, there is no need to worry about her showing the earrings to her friends.
|
| 27. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:3), the Rambam mentions that musk would usually be carried.
|
| 28. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that this pouch was also attractive, being made of gold or silver.
|
| 29. |
Balsam oil is renowned for its pleasant fragrance.
|
| 30. |
Significantly, our text of the Mishnah states kovellet, replacing the כ with a ב. The meaning of the term, however, does not change.
|
| 31. |
This refers to attractive hair glued to a thin surface and placed on a woman's head (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:5).
Needless to say, in addition to the more inclusive leniencies involving jewelry in general, the nature of wigs and false teeth are different today. Therefore, there is no difficulty in wearing these items in the public domain.
|
| 32. |
This pad was placed on a woman's forehead beneath the frontlet of gold (Shabbat 57b) in a manner similar to the woolen pad that the High Priest would wear under his forehead plate (Chulin 138a). Apparently this pad was also attractive and could serve as an ornament in its own right.
|
| 33. |
This clause is set off by braces, because based on manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torahand early printings, it appears to be a printer's addition and not part of the Rambam's original text. According to the Rambam, this suspicion is not relevant with regard to these particular articles.
|
| 34. |
Although the prohibition against carrying in such a courtyard is Rabbinic in origin and there is no possibility of transgressing a Torah prohibition, our Sages imposed the restrictions against carrying there as well. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is not considered as instituting "a safeguard for a safeguard." Were women allowed to wear these adornments in a courtyard, they would most likely inadvertently proceed into the public domain while wearing them.
The Maggid Mishneh also explains that according to the Rambam, there appears to be no prohibition against women wearing such articles at home. We do not suspect that they will inadvertently go outside while wearing them. Other Rishonim (the Ramban and the Rashba) differ and prohibit wearing ornaments even in one's home. As mentioned above, however, at present it is customary to adopt a more lenient approach regarding the entire issue of wearing jewelry.
|
| 35. |
In contrast to the strands of wool or linen mentioned in Halachah 6. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons the Sages forbade wearing strands from other fabrics do not apply in this instance.
|
| 36. |
See Shabbat 64b for an explanation why it is necessary to mention all three instances.
|
| 37. |
Based on an alternate interpretation [or perhaps an alternate version] of Shabbat 64b, Rabbenu Asher and others differ and also forbid a young woman from wearing strands of hair from an elderly woman.
|
| 38. |
Even of wool and linen. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons why it was forbidden to wear strands of these fabrics tied to one's hair do not apply in this instance.
|
| 39. |
It is, however, forbidden for a woman to wear a choker necklace (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 40. |
This ruling serves as the basis for some of the lenient opinions mentioned in the notes on Halachah 4, which allow women to wear jewelry in the public domain at present. All our women are dignified and are not accustomed to removing their jewelry and showing it to their friends.
|
| 41. |
See Halachah 6 and notes.
|
| 42. |
To absorb the fluids it produces (Rashi, Shabbat 64b).
|
| 43. |
To make walking more comfortable (ibid.).
|
| 44. |
As reflected by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:13), this applies only when the woman's intent is that the blood from the discharge will not cause her discomfort when it dries. If her intent is to prevent the discharge from soiling her clothes, it is forbidden. See Halachah 22.
|
| 45. |
I.e., if a woman had such a substance in her mouth before the Sabbath, she may continue holding it in her mouth on the Sabbath. She may not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself, nor may she return such a substance to her mouth if it falls out.
Based on Chapter 21, Halachah 24, it appears that the restrictions on placing a substance in one's mouth on the Sabbath to prevent bad breath apply only when one will continue carrying those substances in one's mouth outside.
|
| 46. |
So that the holes in their pierced ears will not close (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 6:6).
|
| 47. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid. Rashi (Shabbat65a) and others translate רעולות as "veiled." See the notes on Halachah 18, which discuss the laws regarding wearing bells on the Sabbath.
|
| 48. |
Jewish women living in Media would wear a coat with a strap in one of its upper corners. They would place a stone, nut, coin, or the like under the cloak to serve as a makeshift button. The strap would be looped around this button to fasten the cloak closed (Rashi, loc. cit.).
|
| 49. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:22) emphasizes that a stone must be set aside for this purpose before the commencement of the Sabbath. Otherwise, it is muktzeh and is forbidden to be moved.
|
| 50. |
Even if a coin was set aside for this purpose before the Sabbath, it is still considered to bemuktzeh (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 51. |
Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 52. |
A toothpick.
|
| 53. |
We are permitted to wear any entity that heals the body on the Sabbath. Such articles are not considered to be a burden, but a garment or jewelry. In Chapter 21, Halachot 26-27, the Rambam discusses whether it is permissible to place wadding or bandages on a wound on the Sabbath.
|
| 54. |
These restrictions do not apply to a rag, because it is inconsequential. Since a cord or a string is considered somewhat important, it is not considered to be subsidiary to the bandage. Hence, the person is considered to be carrying them in the public domain.
|
| 55. |
A coin from the Talmudic period.
|
| 56. |
A cure for weak thighs (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:10).
|
| 57. |
A cure for both insomnia and hyperactivity (ibid.).
|
| 58. |
A cure for continuous high fever (ibid.).
|
| 59. |
This halachah is very problematic for the Rambam. As explained at length in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 11, the Rambam maintains that all occult arts and superstitious practices are not only prohibited, but are absolute nonsense. It would appear that the latter cures mentioned are surely not practical medical advice, but rather a charm stemming from folklore (and perhaps pagan folklore). Indeed, for the latter reason, Rabbi Meir (according to the Rambam's text ofShabbat 6:10, our version states "the Sages") forbids the use of these practices even during the week.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1436) compounds our difficulty in understanding the Rambam's view, citing the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4), which states:
The Radbaz, therefore, maintains that the Rambam is describing a situation where these articles are worn as pendants. Hence, they can be considered equivalent to pieces of jewelry. (See the following halachah with regard to an amulet that has not proved its efficacy.) If, however, they are carried by hand, it is forbidden to go out to the public domain with them on the Sabbath. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:27) does not make such a stipulation and quotes the Rambam's words in this halachah without emendation.
|
| 60. |
A stone worn by a woman to prevent a miscarriage (Rashi, Shabbat 66b).
|
| 61. |
A weight equivalent to that of the tekumah stone, which is purported to have a similar positive effect (ibid.).
|
| 62. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that, in contrast to Rashi's view, according to the Rambam, an amulet that healed one person three times is not considered to have proved its efficacy.
|
| 63. |
At the outset, however, one is forbidden to go out wearing such an amulet.
|
| 64. |
I.e., the amulet is considered to be an ornament, like a piece of jewelry.
|
| 65. |
There is no obligation to wear tefillin on the Sabbath, and we are therefore forbidden to wear them in most circumstances. (See Halachah 23 with regard to the exceptions.) Nevertheless, since they are worn as a garment, a person is not liable for wearing them.
|
| 66. |
Rashi (Shabbat 60a) gives two rationales for this ruling:
a) The Jerusalem Talmud states that a person who wears only one shoe will be suspected of carrying the other in his cloak.
b) Wearing one shoe may arouse the attention of others and cause them to mock him. We fear that in such a situation the person will remove the sandal that he is wearing and carry it.
It is questionable whether the Rambam accepts the latter rationale. Although Rashi suggests that it applies with regard to several of the items mentioned in the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention it - neither in this chapter nor in his Commentary on the Mishnah.
|
| 67. |
This is the simple interpretation of the word קטן. Note, however, the commentary of Rashi onShabbat 141b, where he interprets the term as referring to a small adult. Since the obligation of a child is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages would not enforce any further safeguards on his conduct.
|
| 68. |
The rationale is that the sandal may fall off and the child might carry it in the public domain.
|
| 69. |
Rashi interprets the Talmud (loc. cit.) as referring to a torn sandal.
|
| 70. |
Lest the sandal prove uncomfortable and the woman carry it.
|
| 71. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8). Shabbat66b offers three different Aramaic interpretations of this term. These interpretations, in turn, are understood differently by the later commentaries.
In the above source, the Rambam states that since it is uncomfortable to walk in wooden shoes, they are not considered to be garments.
|
| 72. |
For he did not transfer them in an ordinary manner (Merkevet HaMishneh).
|
| 73. |
This reflects a fusion of the interpretation by Rav Hai Gaon (and Tosafot) of Shabbat 50a, which understands these substances to be makeshift wigs to cover baldness, and that of Rashi, who explains that these terms refer to wool that is placed on wounds.
|
| 74. |
I.e., he performed a deed that indicates that he desires to use the wool as a wig.
|
| 75. |
If he wore the wool as a wig once before the Sabbath, this indicates that he is willing to use it for this purpose. Otherwise, since most people would not wear a wig of this nature, it is forbidden to wear it on the Sabbath because it is muktzeh (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:62).
|
| 76. |
The source for this halachah is Nedarim 55b. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "coarsely woven material that is not sown."
|
| 77. |
Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Oholot 11:3).
|
| 78. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "a wrap made from an extremely coarse and thick fabric... used for protection from rain."
|
| 79. |
Although these are not proper garments, since they resemble clothing and are useful in protecting one against the rain, they may be worn.
|
| 80. |
In this instance, although the person is seeking protection from the rain, since these are not garments, he is considered to be carrying a burden (Rashi Nedarim, loc. cit.).
|
| 81. |
If, however, the bells are not woven into the garment, there are restrictions against wearing them, lest they become severed and the person carry them in the public domain. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:21, Mishnah Berurah 301:80.)
|
| 82. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 301:23), who states that this leniency applies only to bells whose clappers have been removed. Otherwise, it is forbidden to wear them, for jingling a bell is forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 83. |
This refers to an eved Cana'ani - i.e., a servant who has been circumcised and has been immersed in the mikveh, and who has accepted the observance of the Torah's laws. Such a servant is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot incumbent on a woman (Chaggigah 4a). (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11, 13:18.)
|
| 84. |
A seal of identification, indicating to whom he belongs. The seal is permitted because it resembles a piece of jewelry. In contrast to a metal seal, the servant is allowed to go out wearing a clay seal, since were it to fall, it would break and would be worthless.
|
| 85. |
But not hanging from his clothes (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 86. |
The intent here is not necessarily a prayer shawl, but also a garment worn for mundane purposes as well. We have, nevertheless, merely transliterated the Hebrew term rather than translate it as "garment," to indicate the type of clothing that is under discussion. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:31) specifically states that this restriction does not apply to contemporary garments, because they are of a different type.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:36 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:117 emphasize that even the garments worn at present should not be lifted up extremely high.
|
| 87. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not state that the person is liable, for the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 88. |
Rashi (Shabbat 147a) explains that tying the string around one's finger will prevent the wrap from falling. We do not fear that the wrap will fall and the person will carry it in the public domain.
The commentaries explain that in contrast to the garment mentioned in the first clause, since it is customary to wear a wrap folded, there is no difficulty in wearing it in this manner on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, in light of the final clause, they require that the wrap be large enough to cover one's head and the majority of one's body.
Although there are more stringent opinions, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:37 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:115 permit the wearing of scarfs that are not this large if it is accepted practice in a community to wear such garments.
|
| 89. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that this clause refers to a passage fromShabbat 147b which describes a wrap worn by women after a bath.
|
| 90. |
Our translation is based on Rashi, Shabbat 147b. Rav Kapach suggests a different version of that text. Since this cloth is not large enough to cover the person's head and the majority of his body, the only way it may be worn is when one ties it as a belt.
|
| 91. |
This does not refer to a tallit used for prayer, but rather to an ordinary shawl that resembles such a garment.
|
| 92. |
See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1).
|
| 93. |
Since they are of no consequence to the person whatsoever, they have no halachic importance either. It is as if they did not exist at all. If, however, the person was disturbed by their presence, it would be forbidden.
|
| 94. |
Since the tzitzit are important to the person, they are not considered to be subsidiary to the garment. Hence, wearing a garment to which they are attached is considered to be carrying a burden.
|
| 95. |
The Rambam elaborates slightly in this instance to negate the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who maintains that it is forbidden to wear tzitzit on Friday night. He explains that since one does not fulfill a mitzvah by wearing tzitzit at night, and yet the tzitzit are important, wearing a garment to which they are attached is equivalent to carrying a burden on the Sabbath.
The Rambam does not accept this rationale, explaining that since the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, they are considered to be an adornment of the garment even when a mitzvah is not fulfilled by wearing them. In one of his responsa, the Rambam deals with this issue at length.
In this context, note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:45, which states that this applies to a man, but not to a woman. For a woman, tzitzit are always considered a burden on the Sabbath. Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah, which cites differing views.
|
| 96. |
The commentaries note a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. Although there are only two positive commandments whose observance supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions - circumcision and the offering of the Paschal sacrifice - it is because of a specific divine decree and not because of the fact that they are punishable by karet that these mitzvot supersede the Sabbath laws.
|
| 97. |
Used by a carpenter to see if the different pieces of wood are level (Rashi, Shabbat 11b). This and all the other items mentioned are symbols that the various artisans would wear so that people could identify their professions.
|
| 98. |
I.e., since it is not the ordinary practice for most people to carry an article in this fashion, the fact that certain people do carry in this manner is not significant.
It must be noted that this ruling (which follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Shabbat 11b) appears to contradict the explanation given by Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son, to Halachah 5. (See the notes on that halachah.)
|
| 99. |
A man with a discharge from his sexual organ resembling that resulting from venereal disease. (See Leviticus, chapter 15; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah, chapter 2.)
|
| 100. |
As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 11, it is forbidden to wear an article merely to prevent one's clothes from being soiled.
|
| 101. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
|
| 102. |
We have used the word "man" in consideration of the ruling of the Magen Avraham 301:53, who states that for a woman, tefillin are always considered to be a burden. (See the Mishnah Berurah 301:158, which cites a differing opinion.
|
| 103. |
Halachah 14 states that a person who wears tefillin is not liable - i.e., since tefillin are worn as a garment, he is exempt. Nevertheless, the Rabbis forbade wearing tefillin, because there is no mitzvah to do so on the Sabbath. They did not, however, apply this prohibition in this instance out of reverence for the sacred articles. Were the tefillin to be left there, they might be treated with disrespect.
The Sha'agat Aryeh (Responsum 41) questions the Rambam's ruling, because - as reflected byHilchot Tefillin 4:11 - the Rambam maintains that there is a prohibition from the Torah against putting on tefillin when there is no obligation to do so. He resolves that difficulty by stating that the prohibition applies only when one puts them on at an improper time, with the intent of fulfilling a mitzvah. If that is not one's intent, there is no prohibition.
|
| 104. |
Since he will not have time to bring them in until after nightfall, it is preferable to stay there and protect them all rather than bring them in one pair at a time. When, by contrast, there is a possibility of bringing them in before nightfall, the Sages were willing to allow him to leave the remainder of the tefillin unattended briefly, so that he could complete the task earlier.
|
| 105. |
Shabbat 130a relates that the Romans made the wearing of tefillin punishable by death.
|
| 106. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 17, which explains this leniency applies even with regard to one's personal concerns. Surely, it applies with regard to matters associated with a mitzvah.
|
| 107. |
There, a person in the courtyard should remove the tefillin from the body of the person who was carrying them while he is still walking outside the courtyard. Thus, one person will have performed the akirah (the removal of the article from its original place) and another thehanachah [the placement of the article (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:52)].
|
| 108. |
For the possibility exists that they are merely an amulet (Eruvin 97a).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's conception of that Talmudic passage and maintains that there is no question concerning the identity of the tefillin, for we do not suspect that a person would make an amulet that resembles tefillin. The difficulty is that if the knots of the tefillin are not tied, it is forbidden to tie them on the Sabbath. Thus, it will be impossible to wear the tefillinon the Sabbath.
The difference between these two views is that, according to the Ra'avad, if one finds tefillinwithout straps, one is obligated to remain watching them until after nightfall. The Rambam, by contrast, would allow a person to leave them.
The Maggid Mishneh cites a responsum purported to be written by the Rambam to the scholars of Lunil concerning tzitzit, which indicates that he accepted the Ra'avad's position. When citing the law regarding tefillin, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:42) quotes the Rambam's view. The Magen Avraham 301:53 states that even if the Rambam's view would have applied in previous generations, it is not relevant at present, for amulets are not commonly made in the form of tefillin. Therefore, he suggests following the Ra'avad's ruling.
|
| 109. |
Since a Torah scroll is not usually worn as a covering, the person is not allowed to cover himself with it under ordinary circumstances. Rather, he must linger and protect the scroll until after nightfall.
|
| 110. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:54 states that one should cover the scroll to protect it. It is questionable why the Rambam makes such a statement with regard to tefillin (Halachah 23), but does not do so in this instance.
|
| 111. |
Although a Torah scroll is not usually worn, and indeed, doing so is not respectful to the scroll, this leniency is granted lest the scroll become ruined.
The Or Sameach questions why the person cannot carry the scroll less than four cubits at a time, as mentioned in the previous halachah. He explains that the problem is transferring the scroll from the public domain to the home. In Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam states that one should throw an article that one is carrying from the public domain into a courtyard in an abnormal manner. This would be disrespectful to the Torah scroll. Therefore, it is preferable to wear the scroll. With regard to the propriety of wearing parchment as a garment, the Or Sameach cites the use of similar substances, as mentioned in Halachah 17. See also the suggestion of Shulchan Aruch HaRav mentioned in Note 107.
|
| 112. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites Shabbat 11b, which, as the Rambam states in Halachah 21, rules that a tailor is not liable for carrying his needle stuck into his clothes. Therefore, forbidding a tailor from wearing his needle on Friday afternoon would be a "safeguard to a safeguard," a Rabbinic decree enforced to insure the observance of another Rabbinic decree. Therefore, the prohibition is directed only at carrying a needle in one's hand.
|
| 113. |
See Hilchot Tefillin 4:14, which states that the holiness of tefillin surpasses that of the tzitz, the frontlet worn by the High Priest. Hence, they are worthy of such constant attention.
|
| 114. |
Compare to Hilchot Tefillin 4:12, which mentions similar concepts.
|
| 115. |
The commentaries state that this is necessary lest others receive the impression that it is permissible to wear tefillin on the Sabbath.
|
Chapter Twenty
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to transfer a burden on an animal on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states, "[On the seventh day, you shall cease activity,] and thus your ox and your donkey may rest."1 This includes [not only] an ox and a donkey, but all animals, beasts, and fowl.2
Halacha 2
Behold, there is [also] an explicit prohibition in the Torah [against working with an animal] as [Exodus 20:10] states: "Do not do any work on the Sabbath. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your servant, your maidservant and your beast."5
[This means that one should not perform forbidden labors such as] plowing and the like [together with an animal]. Since this is a prohibition which is punishable by death, [its violation does not incur] lashes.6
Halacha 3
It is forbidden for a Jew to lend or hire a large animal to a gentile so that the latter may perform work with it on the Sabbath, since [the Jew] is commanded to have his animal rest.7
Halacha 4
It is permitted to sell a gentile a horse, since a horse is used only for human transportation13 and not for transporting burdens.14 [Hence, there is no forbidden labor involved, because] "a living entity carries itself."15
Just as it is forbidden to sell [such an animal] to a gentile, so too is it forbidden to sell it to a Jew who, we suspect, might sell it to a gentile.16
One may, however, sell [a gentile] a cow for the purpose of slaughter, [provided] he slaughters it in the seller's presence. One should not, however, sell [any animal], even an ox fattened for slaughter, without an explicit condition, lest the purchaser delay and work with it [on the Sabbath in the interim].17
Halacha 5
In a place where the accepted custom is to sell a small animal18 to gentiles, one may make such a sale. In a place where the accepted custom is not to make such sales, one should not.19
In all places, however, a large non-domesticated animal should not be sold [to a gentile], just as a large domesticated animal should not be sold unless one does so via a broker.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a person is on a journey and night falls on Friday, [but] he is not accompanied by a gentile to whom he could give his purse:20 If he has an animal with him,21 he should place his purse on [the animal] while it is walking, and when [the animal] desires to stand, he should remove [the purse] from it, so that it will not stand still while carrying [the purse]. [In this manner,] neither the removal of an article from its place, nor placing it down in a new position will have been performed [by the animal].22
It is forbidden for him to direct the animal, even with his voice alone, as long as the purse is on it, so that he will not be considered to be directing his animal on the Sabbath.23 Our Sages decreed24 that one should not place a purse on an animal on the Sabbath unless one is not accompanied by a gentile.25
Halacha 7
Although the person is also accompanied by a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, and a minor26, he should place his purse on the donkey rather than give to one of these individuals, for they are humans and are members of the Jewish people.27
If he is accompanied by a deaf-mute and a mentally incompetent individual, and does not have an animal with him, he should give it to the mentally incompetent individual.28 If [he is accompanied by] a mentally incompetent individual and a minor, he should give it29 to the mentally incompetent individual.30 If [he is accompanied by] a deaf-mute and a minor, he may give it to whomever he desires.31
Halacha 8
It is permitted to lead an animal in the public domain with its reins and its bridle,36 provided the bridle and reins are appropriate for it37 - for example, a horse with a neck-ring, a camel with a rope tied to its mouth, a female camel with an iron bit,38 and a dog with a muzzle.
If, however, one took out an animal with a bridle that is insufficient - e.g., one tied a rope in the mouth of a horse - or with a bridle that is excessive, for it would be controlled with a lesser one, - for example one took out a donkey with a horse's neck-ring, or a cat with a muzzle, it is considered to be a burden.39 For any excessive or insufficient restraint is considered to be a burden.40
Halacha 9
A person should not tie camels together and lead them. [Moreover,] even when they were tied together on Friday, he should not lead them on the Sabbath. One may, however, gather the ropes [of many camels] in one's hand,41 provided none of the ropes extends more than a handbreadth outside one's hand42 and the rope leading from [each] camel's mouth to one's hand is at least a handbreadth above the earth.43
Why is one prohibited from leading camels that are tied to each other? Because it appears as if he is leading them to the marketplace where animals are sold or used for sport.44 For this reason, a person should not go out [leading] an animal wearing a bell around its neck, even if its clapper is plugged [so that] it does not produce a sound.45
Halacha 10
An animal should not go out with a bell [attached to] its coverings,46 a seal47[attached to] its neck, a seal [attached to] its coverings,48 a strap on its foot,49or a ladder on its neck.50
Halacha 11
Chickens56 may not go out with cords,57 nor with straps on their feet.58 Rams may not go out with a small wagon under their fat tail.59 Ewes may not go out with [chips of] wood that are placed in their nostrils so that they sneeze and dislodge the worms in their brains.60
A calf may not go out with a small yoke [that is placed] on its neck to break [its nature] and accustom it [to bearing a yoke so that later it will wear a larger yoke for] plowing. An animal may not go out with a muzzle placed in its mouth so that it will neither bite nor eat. A cow may not go out with a hedgehog skin on its teats so that crawling animals61 will not suck from it when it sleeps,62 nor may it go out with a strap between its horns, regardless of whether it is placed there as an ornament or as a restraint.63
When a goat's horns are pierced, it may go out with a rope tied to its horns on the Sabbath. If the rope is tied to [the goat's] beard, it is forbidden, lest it tear off and the person carry it in his hands in the public domain. The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 12
Rams may go out with a wide strap tied against their genitals so that they will not copulate with females, with a hard piece of leather strapped over their hearts so that they will not be attacked by wolves,64 and with an embroidered cloth that is placed on them to make them more attractive.65
Ewes may go out with their fat tail tied to their backs, [exposing them] so that rams will copulate with them, or tied downward so that rams will not copulate with them. They may go out covered with a cloth so that their wool will remain clean.66
Halacha 13
A donkey should not go out [wearing] a saddle even when it is tied upon it on Friday.69 A horse may not go out wearing a foxtail70 or with a scarlet thread between its eyes.71
An animal should not go out with a feeding bag [attached] to its mouth, nor with metal shoes,72 nor with an amulet that has not proven its efficacy for an animal.73 An animal may, however, go out with a bandage placed on a wound,74with plates placed on a broken bone,75 or with a placenta that is hanging from it.
We may plug up a bell hanging around its neck76 and allow [an animal] to stroll with it in a courtyard.77 Similarly, one may place78 a saddlecloth on a donkey79and allow it to stroll in a courtyard. One may not, however, attach a feeding bag to [an animal] on the Sabbath [even when it will not go beyond a courtyard].80
Halacha 14
Just as a person is commanded that his animals rest on the Sabbath, so too, he is commanded that his servants and maidservants rest. Although they have the power of thought, and act according to their own volition, [their master] is obligated to watch over them and prevent them from performing [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states: "Thus your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner may find repose."81
The servants and maidservants whom we are commanded to have rest [on the Sabbath] are servants that have been circumcised and have immersed themselves [in the mikveh], so that they be granted the status of servants who have accepted the mitzvot that servants are obligated to observe.82 By contrast, servants who have not been circumcised and have not immersed themselves, but have merely accepted [the observance of] the seven [universal] laws commanded to the descendants of Noach,83 are considered equivalent to "resident aliens" and are permitted to perform [forbidden] labors for their own sake84 in public as the Jews may during the week. [The status of] a resident alien is granted only in the era when the Jubilee year is observed.85
[One might ask:] Since a resident alien may perform [forbidden] labors on his own behalf on the Sabbath, and a convert is considered equivalent to a native-born Jew in all matters, who is referred to with [the term הגר] in the phrase, "and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner [הגר] may find repose"?86
This refers to a resident alien who is an employee of a Jew, like "the son of [his] maidservant." Such a resident alien may not perform [forbidden] labors on behalf of his Jewish master on the Sabbath.87He may, however, perform [such labors] on his own behalf. Moreover, even if this foreigner is a servant [belonging to a Jewish master], [this foreigner] may perform [labors] for his own sake [on the Sabbath].88
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
We have translated the verse as it appears in the Torah. The standard printed texts of theMishneh Torah include several words that are not included in the original verse.
|
| 2. |
Bava Kama 54b explains that although the verse mentions only an ox and a donkey, the obligation to rest refers to all animals. "The Torah referred to common circumstances" - i.e., since these animals are generally those used for work, they were the ones mentioned specifically.
|
| 3. |
I.e., the positive commandment of resting on the Sabbath also implies not having one's beasts perform labor.
|
| 4. |
See Halachah 6 and notes.
|
| 5. |
This is the prohibition against working on the Sabbath mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
|
| 6. |
This principle (which has its source in Makkot 13b and which the Rambam quotes in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) generally means that if a person transgresses a prohibition punishable by death, but for certain reasons that punishment cannot be administered, he should not be lashed instead. The rationale is that the only punishment which the Torah prescribed for this transgression is execution. There is no source in the Torah which prescribes a lesser punishment.
Nevertheless, within the context of this principle is also the concept that if a certain dimension of a prohibition involves capital punishment, the punishment of lashes is not given to a person who violates another act that is included in this prohibition, but is not punishable by death.
To apply these concepts to the case at hand: Working with an animal is the subject of a Torah prohibition. When a person works with an animal, however, he is not punished by lashes as are others who violate Torah prohibitions. Why? Because there are certain instances when working with an animal is punishable by death - i.e., when the activity is performed by a man and the animal together - for example, plowing. Therefore, even when the labor a person has the animal perform does not cause that person to incur the death sentence - for example, leading it while it is carrying a burden - he is not punished by lashes.
This is the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. The Ramban (in his gloss on Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 14), however, interprets the Rambam's words to mean that the Torah's prohibition against working with an animal applies only to activities like plowing when the activity is performed by the man and the beast together. The only prohibition stemming from the Torah against having an animal carry a burden is the prohibition derived from the positive commandment mentioned in Halachah 1. Both these interpretations and their implications are discussed at length by the later commentaries.
|
| 7. |
Although the Jew is not making the animal work himself, he is not fulfilling the Torah's command that his animal rest.
|
| 8. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3), the Rambam emphasizes that there is no difference in this instance whether the gentile is an idolater or not.
Based on the rulings of the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 151:4) states that it is customary not to enforce this prohibition in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 151:12 states that the socio-economic conditions under which our people live have changed, and substantial losses would be sustained if the prohibition were observed. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition is no longer applicable, for it is uncommon for a Jew to lend or hire his animals to a gentile.
|
| 9. |
The Kessef Mishneh and others note that Avodah Zarah 15a mentions another reason for this prohibition: A Jew who sells an animal to a gentile on Friday afternoon may be required to assist him in training it to follow its new master. This activity may be prolonged past the commencement of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since this is an infrequent possibility, and the Jew is not performing this task entirely by himself, the Rambam does not mention this matter here. (Significantly, however, he does mention it in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Pesachim, loc. cit.)
|
| 10. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Avadim 8:1. Significantly, in that halachah, the Rambam states that if the gentile demands a price greater than this figure, the Jew has no further obligation.
|
| 11. |
And is unfit for most labor. Since, however, there are tasks that it can perform, the prohibition is not nullified (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam emphasizes that the Jewish owner must not be present while the broker is making the sale.
|
| 13. |
Note the differences between this ruling and the Rambam's statements in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3). The Rambam interprets that Mishnah to be referring to a specific type of horse that is used for transporting birds and not humans. Nevertheless, even according to the Commentary on the Mishnah, ordinary horses are primarily used for human transport.
|
| 14. |
Note the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 151), which states that even though it is now customary to perform other tasks with horses, since our Sages did not apply the prohibition to them originally, the scope of their decree need not be extended in the present age. See the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 15. |
See the explanation of this principle in Chapter 18, Halachah 16.
|
| 16. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 9:8.
|
| 17. |
The Lechem Mishneh and others question if this prohibition applies when one sells an animal to a gentile butcher as well. Even if the butcher does not slaughter the animal in one's presence, it is clear that he did not purchase it for the sake of labor.
|
| 18. |
E.g., a sheep or a goat.
|
| 19. |
The Siftei Cohen (based on Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14b) explains that the reason for the prohibition is our suspicion that the gentile may sodomize the animal, and there is no relation to the Sabbath prohibitions at all.
Work is generally not performed with a small animal, nor would it be proper to forbid the sale of a small animal lest one sell a large animal. The sale of a large animal is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Accordingly, instituting another prohibition because of it would be improper, since the Rabbis did not "institute a safeguard for a safeguard."
Note, however, the Sefer HaKovetz, which differs and maintains that the prohibition against selling a small animal is a safeguard for the prohibition against selling a larger one. Were this not so, the Rambam would not have mentioned the prohibition against selling a small animal in thesehalachot.
|
| 20. |
Although we are forbidden to ask a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on our behalf on the Sabbath, as explained in Chapter 6, leniency is granted in this case. We suspect that if the person was required to abandon his money on the Sabbath, he would disobey the law and carry it himself instead. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 22, and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 24:1.)
|
| 21. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:4, which states that this ruling applies only when the animal belongs to him, for the verse mentioned at the beginning of the chapter states "and thus your ox and your donkey may rest." When the animal belongs to another individual, it is preferable to have the animal carry the purse. Although we are forbidden to perform a forbidden labor with an animal (Halachah 2), that prohibition can be avoided by making sure the animal does not perform theakirah or the hanachah. There is also a Rabbinic prohibition against working with an animal that belongs to another person. That prohibition is, however, less severe than the prohibition against asking a gentile to perform labor on one's behalf.
|
| 22. |
The Mishnah Berurah 266:7 explains that the prohibition against working with an animal also mentions the term melachah. Accordingly, it is the same activities that a man is prohibited from performing on the Sabbath that are forbidden to be done with an animal.
As mentioned previously, the forbidden labor of transferring involves akirah, removing the article from its previous position, and hanachah, placing the article down in a new position. When a person - or an animal - who is carrying an article begins walking, he is considered to have performed an akirah, and when he stops he is considered to have performed a hanachah. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 8.)
Accordingly, were a person to place a burden on an animal while it is at rest and remove it from him after the animal has come to rest again, he would be considered as having performed labor with the animal, for the animal will have performed both the akirah and the hanachah.
If, however, one follows the course of action suggested by the Rambam, the animal will have performed neither of these acts. Since the article was placed upon the animal after it began to walk, it is not considered to have performed the akirah. Similarly, if the article was removed from the animal before it halted, it is not considered to have performed the hanachah.
|
| 23. |
The Rashba and others question the Rambam's ruling in this instance, arguing that since the animal does not perform the akirah and the hanachah (as explained above), what difference does it make whether one leads the animal or not? There is no possibility of the animal's performing a forbidden labor.
The Rambam, however, maintains that leading an animal carrying a burden is also forbidden. Otherwise, the license granted a person would be too extensive (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 24. |
Shabbat 17b.
|
| 25. |
As the Rambam states in Chapter 6, Halachah 16, we are not commanded to see that a gentile rests on the Sabbath, while we do have such an obligation with regard to our animals.
(See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 266:6, which state that the above rules also apply when a person is accompanied by a gentile whom he does not trust.)
|
| 26. |
These three types of individuals are often mentioned together in the Talmudic literature. They are all considered to be lacking the intellectual capacity to control their conduct. Hence, they are not obligated to observe the mitzvot.
|
| 27. |
Rashi (Shabbat 153a) adds that if one of these individuals were allowed to carry the purse, one might err and think that an ordinary Jew is also allowed to carry.
|
| 28. |
The deaf-mute has a minimal amount of understanding, and thus, were he to carry an article on the Sabbath, the potential for making an error and thinking that all are allowed to carry is greater (ibid.).
|
| 29. |
The Rashba, the Ramban, Rav Moshe Cohen, and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that one should should give the individual the purse while he is walking, and should remove the purse from him before he stands (as explained in the previous halachah), so that the individual carrying the purse will perform neither the akirah nor the hanachah. They maintain that although a mentally incompetent individual (and similarly, the others mentioned) are not obligated to observe the mitzvot, it is forbidden to "feed him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27.) Similarly, in this instance it is forbidden to give these individuals an article and tell them to carry it. See also Chapter 24, Halachah 11, and notes.
This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:6) and accepted by the later authorities. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether the above law applies if one gives the article to one of these individuals before the commencement of the Sabbath. On the one hand, it is obvious that one's intent is to have the individual carry the article on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since one gives the article to him before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is not considered to be "feeding him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See the glosses of the Ramah and the Magen Avraham on that law.)
|
| 30. |
Since the child will ultimately become obligated to perform mitzvot, it is preferable that he not violate them in his childhood.
|
| 31. |
Shabbat 153b explains that on the one hand, it is preferable to give it to the child, because when the deaf-mute carries, the impression will be created that an adult may carry on the Sabbath. Conversely, however, there is a disadvantage in giving it to the child, for he will ultimately mature and become obligated to observe the mitzvot.
The Be'ur Halachah 266 emphasizes that when the minor is one's own son, it is definitely preferable to give the purse to the deaf-mute, for a person is obligated to train his children in the observance of the mitzvot.
|
| 32. |
As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 15 and 19, a person is permitted to carry within a space of four cubits. Thus, each time he stops, the four cubits in which he is allowed to carry become redefined, and in this manner he can carry the article several miles on the Sabbath. (See also Chapter 13, Halachah 10, and Chapter 6, Halachah 22.)
It must be emphasized that transferring the article less than four cubits at a time is permitted only when carrying the article in the public domain, but not with regard to transferring the article into the private domain. This must be accomplished by throwing the article in an irregular manner (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:12; Mishnah Berurah 266:17).
Significantly, in contrast to Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam does not say that the person should run without stopping until he arrives home. It is possible to differentiate between the two instances by explaining that the present halachah refers to an instance when the person had stopped after the commencement of the Sabbath, while the halachah cited refers to an instance when the person had continued walking.
|
| 33. |
The leniencies granted to allow a person to maintain possession of his own property do not apply to a lost object that he discovered, since he will not suffer a loss by leaving it. Nevertheless, once a person has already taken possession of the lost object, it is considered to be his own property.
|
| 34. |
I.e., if there is a danger, because of thieves or the like.
|
| 35. |
According to the Rambam, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 22, there is no prohibition against carrying an article less than four cubits at a time. Most authorities, however, differ with him on this issue and maintain that this is a leniency that is permitted only in rare instances. Hence, in the case of a lost article when a person will not suffer a loss, the leniency is not granted. It is the opinion of these authorities that is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:7).
|
| 36. |
The bridle and reins are not considered muktzeh, because the person had the intent of using them before the Sabbath. One must, however, be careful not to lean on the animal when putting the bridle and the reins on it, for it is forbidden to make use of a live animal (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:1 and commentaries).
|
| 37. |
This halachah revolves around the following principle: A restraint that is necessary to control an animal is not considered to be a burden and may be borne by the animal on the Sabbath.
|
| 38. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:1), the Rambam writes that female camels are more powerful than males and need stronger restraints. The rope used to tie a male camel is, however, apparently different from that mentioned later in the halachah in regard to a horse.
|
| 39. |
A person who leads an animal into the public domain with such a restraint is thus considered as having violated the prohibition against having an animal work on the Sabbath.
|
| 40. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions "a very excessive restraint" - i.e., we are not expected to measure exactly the strength of the animal and the restraint. As long as the restraint is more or less appropriate for the animal, it is not considered to be a burden.
|
| 41. |
The Tur (Orach Chayim 305) appears to differ and to allow one to lead merely one camel at a time.
|
| 42. |
If the rope extends longer, it might appear that one is carrying the rope and not using it as a restraint for the animal (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:3).
|
| 43. |
If the rope hangs lower, it does not appear to be a restraint for the animal, but rather an unnecessary burden (Rashi, Shabbat 54b).
|
| 44. |
Shabbat 54a states that a person leading a group of camels appears as if he is going to a חנגא. The Rambam, based on the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el, interprets that term as having both the meanings mentioned above. It appears to refer to a country-fair that was an occasion for both commerce and celebration for the populace at large.
|
| 45. |
A bell will make the animal look more attractive (Rashi, Shabbat 54b). Alternatively, a bell's sound will invite the attention of prospective customers. An onlooker may not realize that the bell has been plugged (Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 5:4).
|
| 46. |
Rashi and Tosafot (Shabbat 58a) states that the reason stated in the previous halachah - that one appears to be taking them to a fair - applies in this instance as well.
|
| 47. |
Identifying it as belonging to its master.
|
| 48. |
This prohibition applies even if the seal is woven into the animal's covering (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:15; Mishnah Berurah 305:45).
From the context here, it would appear that the reason for the prohibition is that the seal is considered to be an unnecessary burden. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.), which states that the prohibition was instituted lest the seal fall and the owner pick it up and carry it.
|
| 49. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4, based on Shabbat 54b), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a leather strap tied around the hoof of an animal that has been wounded.
|
| 50. |
This refers to wooden restraint placed on the animal's neck to prevent it from being able to turn its head backwards. Such a restraint would be placed on an animal to deter it from chewing on a wound on its back (ibid.).
|
| 51. |
Shabbat 53a states that a donkey is always cold, and hence, a saddle-cloth is necessary, even in the summer, to keep it warm. Accordingly, the saddle-cloth is considered to be a garment and not a burden.
The saddlecloth must be tied to the animal, lest it fall and its owner carry it on the Sabbath. It must be tied before the Sabbath, because there is no way that it can be tied on the Sabbath itself without leaning on the animal, which is a forbidden act. Our Sages prohibited a person who violated their decree and tied the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath from taking out his donkey on that day (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2).
Other commentaries explain that if the saddle-cloth was not tied to the animal on Friday, we can assume that it does not suffer from cold so seriously. Hence, it is forbidden for it to wear the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath.
|
| 52. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3), the Rambam states that the patch is used as a sign of identification or for superstitious reasons. Note Rashi (Shabbat 54a), who translates מטוטלת as a "small cushion" rather than as a patch.
|
| 53. |
Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's commentary.
|
| 54. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 55. |
I.e., one of its back feet to one of its front legs, so that it can walk on only three legs (ibid.). In both these instances, the animal is able to walk, but cannot walk fast.
|
| 56. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies to both male and female chickens.
|
| 57. |
Attached to their feet for the purpose of identification (ibid., based on Shabbat 54b).
|
| 58. |
The Rambam (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to straps that hang loosely from a chicken's feet. He does not explain their purpose. Others (based on Shabbat 54b) explain that these straps served as a restraint.
|
| 59. |
The Rambam (loc. cit.) explains that this refers to a unique species of rams. When they are fattened, all the fat collects in the fat tail, which swells in size. Because of its size, the ram is unable to lift it easily. Therefore, a small wagon is constructed and attached to them to support their tails and prevent them from dragging on the ground and becoming bruised and cut. The Rambam states that he was familiar with such a species of rams.
|
| 60. |
The Rambam (ibid.) states that this refers to chips from the yachnun tree. Based on Shabbat 54b, he explains that these chips were not necessary for rams. Since they butt each other frequently, this would dislodge the worms from their heads.
|
| 61. |
Significantly, Shabbat 54b singles out the species yalei, which Tosafot (based on Bava Batra 4a) identifies as the hedgehog itself. The Biblical name for this species anaka (Leviticus 11:30) resembles the word yenikah, "sucking," and refers to this species' tendency to suck milk.
|
| 62. |
The sharp prickles of the hedgehog skin will annoy the crawling animals and prevent them from sucking the cow's milk (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit., based on Shabbat 54b).
|
| 63. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah had a neighbor who let his cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar did not rebuke him for this act, and hence the responsibility for this transgression was considered his. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 5:4) relates that as penance, Rabbi Elazar fasted until his teeth became black.
|
| 64. |
Shabbat 53b offers both these interpretations for the word לבובין in the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2. The Rambam interprets them as not being mutually exclusive and hence cites both of them as halachah. See also the following note.
|
| 65. |
Shabbat (loc. cit.) also offers this as an interpretation of the term לבובין. The Ra'avad, however, objects to this particular interpretation, explaining that, as obvious from the ruling in the previous halachah regarding a strap tied between a cow's horns, any article placed on an animal for the purpose of ornamentation is considered to be a burden and forbidden.
The Maggid Mishneh (in his notes on the following halachah) offers an explanation that can resolve this difficulty. An ornament that an animal wears during the week is also permitted on the Sabbath. The ornaments that are forbidden are those that are placed on the animal for the Sabbath day alone.
Note also an original interpretation offered by the Or Sameach, which explains that ornamentation that makes an animal attractive in the eyes of humans is forbidden. The cloth mentioned in this halachah is, by contrast, intended to make the animal attractive in the eyes of the other animals. Some support for this thesis can be derived from comparison to the other articles mentioned in this halachah.
|
| 66. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:2), the Rambam states that these coverings are placed over ewes and not over rams, because ewes' wool is softer than that of rams.
|
| 67. |
This may be done to change the goats' hormonal balance so that they will conceive faster.
|
| 68. |
Rabbenu Yonah explains that the goats' teats were tied for this purpose on the Sabbath and not during the week. During the week, they would be milked in the morning and in the evening, and there was little chance of sufficient pressure building up to cause the milk to ooze out. On the Sabbath, by contrast, they could not be milked from sunset until after nightfall on the next day, and the possibility existed that extra milk would ooze out.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 305:6) follows the interpretation of Rashi, who explains that these ties are not bound tightly and the possibility exists that they will fall and that the owner will carry them in the public domain.
|
| 69. |
Although a donkey may go out wearing a saddlecloth, as stated in Halachah 10, a saddle itself is considered a burden.
|
| 70. |
Rashi (Shabbat 53a) explains that this was used as a talisman to ward off the evil eye.
|
| 71. |
Because it is an unnecessary ornament and therefore considered a burden. See the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 72. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah 305:41, which states that this restriction does not apply to iron horseshoes that are permanently affixed to the animal's feet.
|
| 73. |
Even if an amulet has proven its efficacy for a human, as long as it has not proven its efficacy for an animal, we are in doubt of its usefulness. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:21 states that a human being has angels and spiritual forces that will assist his recovery, and an animal lacks these. Therefore, the amulet used by a human need not be as powerful.
|
| 74. |
Chapter 19, Halachah 13 grants a person license to go out with a bandage on a wound. The same concept applies regarding an animal.
|
| 75. |
So that it will set in place and heal (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 76. |
The bell must be plugged, since it is forbidden to ring bells on the Sabbath as stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 4.
|
| 77. |
In this and the following instance, the leniency is granted in a courtyard, but not in the public domain.
|
| 78. |
The saddle cloth may not be tied, since by doing so one would be making use of an animal. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:8 and the notes on Halachah 10.)
|
| 79. |
This leniency applies only to a donkey that chronically suffers from cold, as explained in the notes on Halachah 10, and not to a horse or other similar species (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 80. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:10) mentions that, in a courtyard, a feeding bag may be attached to calves and ponies which do not have long necks and find it uncomfortable to eat by themselves.
|
| 81. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that since the servants are themselves obligated to observe the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, of what purpose is the prohibition imposed on their master? The Maggid Mishneh and Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1525) explain that the servants may be lax in their observance. Therefore, an additional command is given to their master.
|
| 82. |
In Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14;9, the Rambam explains that a Cana'anite servant goes through a process similar to that of conversion when purchased by a Jewish master. This process includes circumcision, immersion in the mikveh, and the acceptance of mitzvot. Once this process is completed, the servant is bound to observe all the mitzvot that are incumbent upon Jewish women.
|
| 83. |
These seven universal laws include the prohibitions against the worship of false gods, cursing God, killing, stealing, incest and adultery, eating a limb torn from a living animal and the obligation to set up courts of law to judge civil matters. The Rambam explains these laws in Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 9 and 10.
A servant may temporarily refuse to accept the mitzvot incumbent upon Jewish servants. In this instance, he does not undergo the process of circumcision and immersion and is given twelve months to decide whether to accept Jewish observance or not. If he refuses, he must be sold (Hilchot Avadim 8:12).
In the interim, this servant must accept the observance of these seven universal laws. If not, he should be killed immediately (see Hilchot Avadim 1:6 and commentaries).
|
| 84. |
But not for the sake of a Jew. In Chapter 6, it was explained that there is a Rabbinic prohibition preventing a Jew from instructing a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on his behalf. This halachah emphasizes that when a gentile is the Jew's servant, the Jew is violating a positive commandment of the Torah itself by having the gentile work for him on the Sabbath. See notes 87 and 88 below.
|
| 85. |
As explained in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:9, there are many mitzvot whose observance is dependent on the observance of the yovel, the Jubilee year. The observance of the Jubilee year itself is dependent on the proportion of the Jewish people living in Eretz Yisrael. Only when the majority of our people live in the holy land is this mitzvah observed.
|
| 86. |
The intent of this question is not directly obvious in a translated text. The Hebrew word גר has two meanings in Halachic terminology: a convert - גר צדק - and a resident alien - גר תושב. Since, as the Rambam indicates, the verse does not appear to refer to either of these individuals, what is the intent of the word גר in that verse?
|
| 87. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that this positive mitzvah prohibits not only one's servant or one's hired hand, but any gentile who has accepted the observance of these seven universal laws, from working on one's behalf on the Sabbath. For as soon as the gentile agrees to perform the forbidden labor on behalf of a Jew, he is considered as the Jew's hired hand.
The question may arise: Concerning whom is the Rambam speaking in Chapter 6 when he states that asking a gentile to work on our behalf is prohibited merely by virtue of Rabbinic decree? A gentile who has not accepted the observance of any mitzvot at all.
|
| 88. |
Thus, according to the Rambam, the verse quoted above contains two prohibitions: one requiring one to watch that any servants who have accepted the mitzvot observe the Sabbath laws, and another, prohibiting us from benefiting from any work done on our behalf by a gentile who has not accepted these mitzvot.
|
Hayom Yom:
"Today's Day"
Adar I 21, 5774 - 21 February 2014
Friday 21 Adar I 5703 Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Shishi with Rashi. Tehillim: 104-105. Tanya: In truth, however, (p. 137)...as inadvertent acts. (p. 137). The term "chassid" is an ancient one that the Sages had even applied to Adam. 1It describes perfection and excellence in intellect or in emotive character-traits, or in both. However, in Chabad Chassidic doctrine the appelation "Chassid" refers to one who recognizes his own essence-character and his standing in the knowledge and study of Torah, as well as his situation in observing mitzvot. He knows what he lacks and he is concerned and takes pains to fill that void. He is diligent in obedience in the manner of "accepting the yoke." 2
FOOTNOTES 1.Eiruvin 18b. 2.See Supplementary Footnotes, p. 125 in the printed version.
-------
Daily Thought:
Before Dawn
They say the most profound darkness comes just before the dawn. The harshest oppression of our forefathers in Egypt came just before their liberation.
That was a coarse darkness of slavery of the body. Today it is a darkness of the soul, a deep slumber of the spirit of Man. There are sparks of light, glimmerings of a sun that never shone before—but the darkness of night overwhelms all.
Prepare for dawn.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment