Candle Lighting
Light Candles before sunset
Today in Jewish History:• Passing of Maimonides (1204)
Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, Talmudist, Halachist, physician, philosopher and communal leader, known in the Jewish world by the acronym "Rambam" and to the world at large as "Maimonides", passed away in Egypt on the 20th of Tevet in 1204.
Links: A brief biography; a lengthier bio; more
• Printing of the Talmud (1483)
The first volume of the Babylonian Talmud, the tractate Berachot, was printed in Soncino, Italy, on the 20th of Tevet of the year 5244 from creation (1483)
Daily Quote:
If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you![Chassidic master Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemot, 6th Portion Exodus 4:18-4:31 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 4
18Moses went and returned to Jether, his father in law, and he said to him, "Let me go now and return to my brothers who are in Egypt, and let me see whether they are still alive." So Jethro said to Moses, "Go in peace." יחוַיֵּ֨לֶךְ משֶׁ֜ה וַיָּ֣שָׁב | אֶל־יֶ֣תֶר חֹֽתְנ֗וֹ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ אֵ֣לֲכָה נָּ֗א וְאָשׁ֨וּבָה֙ אֶל־אַחַ֣י אֲשֶׁר־בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם וְאֶרְאֶ֖ה הַֽעוֹדָ֣ם חַיִּ֑ים וַיֹּ֧אמֶר יִתְר֛וֹ לְמשֶׁ֖ה לֵ֥ךְ לְשָׁלֽוֹם:
and returned to Jether, his father-in-law: to take his leave, for he had sworn to him [Jethro] (that he would not leave Midian except with his permission) (Exodus Rabbah 4:1). And he had seven names: Reuel, Jether, Jethro, Keni, [Hobab, Heber, and Putiel]. — [from Michilta, Yithro 1:1] See Rashi on Exod. 18:1 for the reasons for these names. וישב אל יתר חתנו: ליטול רשות, שהרי נשבע לו. ושבעה שמות היו לו רעואל, יתר, יתרו, קני, חובב, חבר, פוטיאל:
19The Lord said to Moses in Midian, "Go, return to Egypt, for all the people who sought your life have died." יטוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֤ה אֶל־משֶׁה֙ בְּמִדְיָ֔ן לֵ֖ךְ שֻׁ֣ב מִצְרָ֑יִם כִּי־מֵ֨תוּ֙ כָּל־הָ֣אֲנָשִׁ֔ים הַֽמְבַקְשִׁ֖ים אֶת־נַפְשֶֽׁךָ:
for all the people… have died: Who are they? Dathan and Abiram. They were [really] alive, but they lost their property, and a pauper is considered dead. — [from Ned. 64b] כי מתו כל האנשים: מי הם, דתן ואבירם. חיים היו, אלא שירדו מנכסיהם, והעני חשוב כמת:
20So Moses took his wife and his sons, mounted them upon the donkey, and he returned to the land of Egypt, and Moses took the staff of God in his hand. כוַיִּקַּ֨ח משֶׁ֜ה אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֣וֹ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֗יו וַיַּרְכִּבֵם֙ עַל־הַֽחֲמֹ֔ר וַיָּ֖שָׁב אַ֣רְצָה מִצְרָ֑יִם וַיִּקַּ֥ח משֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מַטֵּ֥ה הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּיָדֽוֹ:
mounted them upon the donkey: The designated donkey. That is the donkey that Abraham saddled for the binding of Isaac, and that is the one upon whom the King Messiah is destined to appear, as it is said: “humble, and riding a donkey” (Zech. 9:9). — [from Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 31] על החמר: חמור המיוחד, הוא החמור שחבש אברהם לעקידת יצחק והוא שעתיד מלך המשיח להגלות עליו, שנאמר (זכריה ט ט) עני ורוכב על חמור:
and he returned to the land of Egypt, and Moses took the staff:Chronological order is not strictly adhered to in the Scriptures. וישב ארצה מצרים ויקח משה את מטה וגו': אין מוקדם ומאוחר מדוקדקים במקרא:
21The Lord said to Moses, "When you go to return to Egypt, see all the signs that I have placed in your hand and perform them before Pharaoh, but I will strengthen his heart, and he will not send out the people. כאוַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָה֘ אֶל־משֶׁה֒ בְּלֶכְתְּךָ֙ לָשׁ֣וּב מִצְרַ֔יְמָה רְאֵ֗ה כָּל־הַמֹּֽפְתִים֙ אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בְיָדֶ֔ךָ וַֽעֲשִׂיתָ֖ם לִפְנֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֑ה וַֽאֲנִי֙ אֲחַזֵּ֣ק אֶת־לִבּ֔וֹ וְלֹ֥א יְשַׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־הָעָֽם:
When you go to return to Egypt: You should know that with this intention you shall go, that you shall be steadfast in My mission, to perform all My signs before Pharaoh, and you shall not be afraid of him. בלכתך לשוב מצרימה וגו': דע שעל מנת כן תלך, שתהא גבור בשליחותי לעשות כל מופתי לפני פרעה ולא תירא ממנו:
that I have placed in your hand: He did not say this in reference to the three aforementioned signs, for He had not commanded that he [Moses] do them before Pharaoh but before Israel, in order that they would believe him, and we do not find that he performed them before him [Pharaoh]. But [regarding] signs that I am destined to put into your hand in Egypt, such as: “When Pharaoh speaks to you [i.e., asking for you to perform signs], etc.” (Exod. 7:9), do not wonder that it is written: “that I have placed,” [i.e., implying the past tense,] because this is what it means: “When you speak to him, I will have already placed them into your hand.” אשר שמתי בידך: לא על שלש האותות האמורות למעלה, שהרי לא לפני פרעה צוה לעשותם אלא לפני ישראל, שיאמינו לו, ולא מצינו שעשאם לפניו, אלא מופתים שאני עתיד לשום בידך במצרים, כמו (שמות ז ט) כי ידבר אליכם פרעה וגו'. ואל תתמה על אשר כתיב אשר שמתי, שכן משמעו כשתדבר עמו, כבר שמתים בידך:
22And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'So said the Lord, "My firstborn son is Israel." ' כבוְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
And you shall say to Pharaoh: When you hear that his heart is hard, and he refuses to send [the Israelites out], say thus to him. ואמרת אל פרעה: כשתשמע שלבו חזק וימאן לשלוח אמור לו כן:
My firstborn son: [Firstborn is] an expression of greatness, similar to “I, too, shall make him a firstborn” (Ps. 89:28). This is its simple meaning, but its midrashic interpretation is: Here the Holy One, blessed be He, acknowledged the sale of the birthright, which Jacob bought from Esau. — [from Gen. Rabbah 63:14] בני בכרי: לשון גדולה, כמו (תהילים פט כח) אף אני בכור אתנהו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו כאן חתם הקב"ה על מכירת הבכורה שלקח יעקב מעשו:
23So I say to you, 'Send out My son so that he will worship Me, but if you refuse to send him out, behold, I am going to slay your firstborn son.' " כגוָֽאֹמַ֣ר אֵלֶ֗יךָ שַׁלַּ֤ח אֶת־בְּנִי֙ וְיַ֣עַבְדֵ֔נִי וַתְּמָאֵ֖ן לְשַׁלְּח֑וֹ הִנֵּה֙ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הֹרֵ֔ג אֶת־בִּנְךָ֖ בְּכֹרֶֽךָ:
So I say to you…: in G-d's name, send My son etc. ואמר אליך: בשליחותו של מקום:
Send out My son… but if you refuse to send him out, behold, I am going to slay, etc.: That is the last plague, but He warned him [Pharaoh] about it first, because it was [the most] severe, and that is what [Scripture] says: “Behold, God deals loftily in His power” (Job 36:22). Therefore, “who is a teacher like Him?” [A man of] flesh and blood who seeks to avenge himself against his fellow, concealing his plans, so that he will not seek rescue, but the Holy One, blessed be He, deals loftily with His strength, and no one is able to escape from his hand, except by returning to Him [by repenting]. Therefore, He teaches him [about possible punishment] and warns him to repent. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 14, Exodus Rabbah 9:9] שלח את בני וגו' הנה אנכי הרג וגו': היא מכה אחרונה ובה התרהו תחלה מפני שהיא קשה, וזה הוא שאמר (איוב לו כב) הן אל ישגיב בכחו, לפיכך מי כמוהו מורה (איוב לו כב). בשר ודם המבקש להנקם מחבירו מעלים את דבריו שלא יבקש הצלה, אבל הקב"ה ישגיב בכחו ואין יכולת להמלט מידו, כי אם בשובו אליו, לפיכך הוא מורהו ומתרה בו לשוב:
24Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. כדוַיְהִ֥י בַדֶּ֖רֶךְ בַּמָּל֑וֹן וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁ֣הוּ יְהֹוָ֔ה וַיְבַקֵּ֖שׁ הֲמִיתֽוֹ:
Now he was: [I.e.,] Moses. ויהי: משה בדרך במלון:
on the way, in an inn and sought to put him to death: [I.e., He sought] Moses, because he had neglected to circumcise his son Eliezer. Because he neglected it, he was [to be] punished with death. It was taught in a Braitha: Rabbi Jose said: God forbid! Moses did not neglect it, but he reasoned: Shall I circumcise [him] and go forth on the road? It will be dangerous for the child for three days. Shall I circumcise [him] and wait three days? The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me, “Go, return to Egypt.” [Moses hurried to Egypt intending to circumcise Eliezer upon his return.] Why [then] was he to be punished with death? Because first he busied himself with [the details of] his lodging. [This appears] in tractate Nedarim (31b). The angel turned into a sort of serpent and swallowed him [Moses] from his head to his thighs, and then [spit him out and] swallowed him from his feet to his private parts. Zipporah therefore understood that it was because of [the failure to perform] the circumcision [that this occurred]. — [from Ned. 32a, Exodus Rabbah 5:5] ויבקש המיתו: המלאך למשה, לפי שלא מל את אליעזר בנו, ועל שנתרשל נענש מיתה. תניא אמר רבי יוסי חס ושלום לא נתרשל, אלא אמר אמול ואצא לדרך, סכנה היא לתינוק עד שלשה ימים, אמול ואשהה שלשה ימים, הקב"ה צוני (פסוק י"ט) לך שוב מצרים. ומפני מה נענש, לפי שנתעסק במלון תחלה. במסכת נדרים (דף לא ב). והיה המלאך נעשה כמין נחש ובולעו מראשו ועד ירכיו, וחוזר ובולעו מרגליו ועד אותו מקום, הבינה צפורה שבשביל המילה הוא:
25So Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet, and she said, "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me." כהוַתִּקַּ֨ח צִפֹּרָ֜ה צֹ֗ר וַתִּכְרֹת֙ אֶת־עָרְלַ֣ת בְּנָ֔הּ וַתַּגַּ֖ע לְרַגְלָ֑יו וַתֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֧י חֲתַן־דָּמִ֛ים אַתָּ֖ה לִֽי:
and cast it to his feet: She cast it before Moses’ feet. — [from Yerushalmi, Ned. 3:9] ותגע לרגליו: השליכתו לפני רגליו של משה:
and she said: about her son. ותאמר: על בנה:
For you are a bridegroom of blood to me: You were a cause that my bridegroom would [almost] be murdered. You are to me the slayer of my bridegroom. כי חתן דמים אתה לי: אתה היית גורם להיות החתן שלי נרצח עליך, הורג אישי אתה לי:
26So He released him. Then she said, "A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision." כווַיִּ֖רֶף מִמֶּ֑נּוּ אָ֚ז אָֽמְרָ֔ה חֲתַ֥ן דָּמִ֖ים לַמּוּלֹֽת:
So He released: [I.e.,] the angel [released] him. Then she understood that [it was] because of the circumcision that he had come to slay him. וירף: המלאך ממנו. אז הבינה שעל המילה בא להורגו:
she said, “A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision”: My bridegroom would have been murdered because of the circumcision. אמרה חתן דמים למולת: חתני היה נרצח על דבר המילה:
concerning the circumcision: Heb. לַמּוּלֹת concerning the circumcision. This is a noun, and the “lammed” serves as an expression meaning “concerning,” similar to “And Pharaoh will say concerning the children of (לִבְנֵי) Israel” (Exod. 14:3). Onkelos, however, translates דָמִים as referring to the blood of the circumcision. למולת: על דבר המולות. שם דבר הוא, והלמ"ד משמשת בלשון על, כמו (שמות יד ג) ואמר פרעה לבני ישראל. ואונקלוס תרגם דמים, על דם המילה:
27The Lord said to Aaron, "Go toward Moses, to the desert." So he went and met him on the mount of God, and he kissed him. כזוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן לֵ֛ךְ לִקְרַ֥את משֶׁ֖ה הַמִּדְבָּ֑רָה וַיֵּ֗לֶךְ וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁ֛הוּ בְּהַ֥ר הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים וַיִּשַּׁק־לֽוֹ:
28And Moses told Aaron all the words of the Lord with which he had sent him and all the signs that He had commanded him. כחוַיַּגֵּ֤ד משֶׁה֙ לְאַ֣הֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֛ת כָּל־דִּבְרֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר שְׁלָח֑וֹ וְאֵ֥ת כָּל־הָֽאֹתֹ֖ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּֽהוּ:
29So Moses and Aaron went, and they assembled all the elders of the children of Israel. כטוַיֵּ֥לֶךְ משֶׁ֖ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן וַיַּ֣אַסְפ֔וּ אֶת־כָּל־זִקְנֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
30And Aaron spoke all the words that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs before the eyes of the people. לוַיְדַבֵּ֣ר אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֚ת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֑ה וַיַּ֥עַשׂ הָֽאֹתֹ֖ת לְעֵינֵ֥י הָעָֽם:
31And the people believed, and they heard that the Lord had remembered the children of Israel, and they kneeled and prostrated themselves. לאוַיַּֽאֲמֵ֖ן הָעָ֑ם וַיִּשְׁמְע֡וּ כִּֽי־פָקַ֨ד יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְכִ֤י רָאָה֙ אֶת־עָנְיָ֔ם וַיִּקְּד֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲוֽוּ:
----------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 97 - 103
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 97
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 97 - 103
• Hebrew text
• English text• 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.
FOOTNOTES
1. When swearing, they would say, “If I am lying, may I become like the miserable Jews” (Metzudot).
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 12
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Friday, Tevet 20, 5776 · January 1, 2016
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Friday, Tevet 20, 5776 · January 1, 2016
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 12
אך מהות ועצמות נפש האלקית, שהן עשר בחינותיה
However, the essence and being of the divine soul, which are its ten faculties,
(The three soul-powers of intellect and the seven emotional faculties are referred to as the “essence” of the divine soul, in contrast with the soul’s “garments” (thought, speech and action), which serve merely as outlets and means of expression for the soul’s essential faculties.)
לא להן לבדן המלוכה והממשלה בעיר קטנה
do not hold undisputed sovereignty and sway over the “small city” — the body.
For, as shall be explained later, the faculties of the animal soul, too, exercise some degree of control over the body, through awakening in one’s heart desires for worldly pleasures, which in turn cause forbidden thoughts to enter his mind.
כי אם בעתים מזומנים כמו בשעת קריאת שמע ותפלה
Only at specific times do the faculties of the divine soul hold undisputed sovereignty over the Beinoni with the animal soul having no effect whatever on him, such as during the recital of the Shema or the Amidah.
שהיא שעת מוחין דגדלות למעלה
At this time [of prayer], the Supernal Intellect above is in a sublime state — it is a time of great spiritual illumination in the higher spiritual worlds;
וגם למטה היא שעת הכושר לכל אדם
likewise below — in this physical world — the time [of prayer] is propitious for every man to ascend to a higher spiritual level.
שאז מקשר חב״ד שלו לה׳
Then, during the recital of Shema or during prayer, [the Beinoni] binds his CHaBaD — his intellectual faculties, consisting of Chochmah, Binah and Daat — to G‑d,
להעמיק דעתו בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
meditating deeply on the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof,
ולעורר את האהבה כרשפי אש בחלל הימני שבלבו
and arousing through this meditation a burning love [of G‑d] in the right part of his heart; for, as explained in previous chapters, meditation on G‑d’s greatness arouses the love of Him within one’s heart.
לדבקה בו בקיום התורה ומצותיה מאהבה
This love, in turn, leads the Beinoni to desire to cleave to Him by means of fulfilling the Torah and its commandments out of love.
The realization that only the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot will fulfill his desire to become one with G‑d channels theBeinoni’s love into a desire to observe Torah and mitzvot.
שזה ענין המבואר בקריאת שמע דאורייתא
This arousal of love for G‑d, and its accompanying resolve to adhere to Torah and mitzvot and thereby to cleave to Him, is the essential subject of the Shema, which Biblical (deoraysa) commandment enjoins us to recite;
וברכותיה שלפניה ולאחריה שהן מדרבנן הן הכנה לקיום הקריאת שמע, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
likewise, the Rabbinically ordained (derabbanan) blessings preceding and following [the Shema] are a preparation enabling us to fulfill [that which we recite in] the Shema, as explained elsewhere.1
ואז הרע שבחלל השמאלי כפוף ובטל לטוב המתפשט בחלל הימני מחב״ד שבמוח המקושרים בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
At such time, during the Shema or prayer, when the love of G‑d burns in the heart of the Beinoni, the evil in the left part of his heart (the animal soul’s principal area of manifestation) is subjected to and is nullified before the goodness(i.e.,the love of G‑d) that spreads into the right part of the heart, where the divine soul is manifest, from theCHaBaD faculties in the brain which are bound [in meditation] to the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof.
Contemplating G‑d’s greatness with the three intellectual faculties — Wisdom, Understanding and Knowledge(CHaBaD) — arouses and diffuses a love of G‑d in (the right part of) the heart. This arousal of love causes the evil of the animal soul to be nullified in the good of the divine soul now pervading the heart. During the time of prayer, therefore, when the Beinoni arouses his love of G‑d through meditation, his animal soul is inactive, and he feels no inclination for physical pleasures. Thus, during prayer the Beinoni’s divine soul is his “undisputed sovereign,” as the Alter Rebbe stated above.
אבל אחר התפלה, בהסתלקות המוחין דגדלות אין סוף ברוך הוא, הרי הרע חוזר וניעור בחלל השמאלי, ומתאוה תאוה לתאות עולם הזה ותענוגיו
But this state of affairs lasts only for the duration of the spiritually-charged time of prayer. After prayer, however, when the intellect of the blessed Ein Sof is no longer in a state of sublimity, i.e., when the spiritual illumination engendered by prayer ceases, the evil of the animal soul in the left part of the heart reawakens, and he (the Beinoni)[once again] feels a desire for the lusts of this world and its delights, since the evil of the Beinoni’s animal soul remains undiminished even after prayer (as the Alter Rebbe will explain shortly).
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Generally speaking, the blessings recited over the performance of a mitzvah are a Rabbinic contribution to the Biblicalmitzvah. This contribution may be understood as follows. Every mitzvah is a channel drawing down holiness upon the soul of the Jew performing it. In order that one be a fitting vessel for this sanctity, the Sages ordained that he recite a blessing before performing the mitzvah. The connection between the blessing and the mitzvah is always clear: The blessing actually mentions the particular commandment to be performed and thanks G‑d for sanctifying us by commanding us to perform it. For example, the blessing over the tefillinconcludes with the words, “...and He commanded us to don the tefillin.” In the case of the blessings said before reciting theShema, however, it is not clear what the blessings accomplish. They do not mention the mitzvah of reciting these passages, nor have they any apparent connection with their contents. Why were they ordained to be said at this particular juncture? In ch. 49, the Alter Rebbe gives the following explanation. The intention behind the reading of the Shema is that one should come to “love G‑d your L‑rd with all your heart, soul and might” (as the Alter Rebbe states in our text). To achieve this, one must prepare himself by contemplating those matters which evoke the love of G‑d. To this end, the Sages instituted two blessings. The first describes aspects of the greatness of G‑d — how the loftiest angels are utterly nullified before Him, how He is far removed from them, and so forth. The second berachah speaks of His great love for the Jewish People, how He draws them close to Him, and so on. After meditating on the ideas expressed in these blessings one is indeed ready to fulfill the precept of Shema — to fill his heart with the love of G‑d. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Friday, Tevet 20, 5776 · January 1, 2016
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 321
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day"—Exodus 16:29.
It is forbidden on Shabbat to travel more than 2,000 cubits (approximately 3000 ft.) out of a city's parameters.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
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 321
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day"—Exodus 16:29.
It is forbidden on Shabbat to travel more than 2,000 cubits (approximately 3000 ft.) out of a city's parameters.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
Negative Commandment 321
Translated by Berel Bell
The 321st prohibition is that we are forbidden to travel [even by foot] on Shabbos.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1, "No man may leave his place on the seventh day."
Oral Tradition defines limit of "travel" as 2000 amos2 beyond the city limit; one may not walk even a single amoh more. However, one may walk within 2000 amos from the city limit in any direction.3
The Mechilta says: " 'No man may leave his place,' — this means beyond 2000 amos."
Our Sages said in tractate Eruvin4, "For violating the prohibition of the Shabbos limit, one receives lashes by Biblical ordinance."5
The details of this commandment are discussed in that same tractate.
FOOTNOTES
1.Shmos 16:29.
2.Approximately 3000 ft. In Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Shabbos 27:1), the Rambam rules that walking 2000 amos is prohibited only by Rabbinic law, while the Biblical prohibition is in effect only at 12 mil, or approximately 24,000 amos.
The Rambam himself explains, however, (in responsa 310, quoted in Mishneh Torah, Kapach ed., p. 575) that there is no contradiction between his two works. Sefer Hamitzvos is meant only to give a general description of the mitzvah, so he did not mention the two categories. Mishneh Torah, on the other hand, gives all the relevant halachic details. See also Introduction to Sefer Hamitzvos.
3.In Mishneh Torah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this area is considered within the suburbs of the city (see Num. 35:5).
4.17b.
5.With this quote, the Rambam proves that this mitzvah in included in the count of the 613 mitzvos.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Terumot - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
A fetus, a yavam, consecration, a deaf-mute, and a child of nine years old disqualify [a woman] from partaking of terumah, but do not entitle her to partake [of it].1
Halacha 2
What is meant [by the above statement] with regard to a fetus? A daughter of an Israelite who was impregnated by a priest2 is not entitled to partake ofterumah by virtue of the fetus.3 When the daughter of a priest, by contrast, was impregnated by an Israelite,4 she is prohibited against partaking ofterumah because of the fetus. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:13:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a pregnant woman.5
Halacha 3
When an Israelite has relations with a daughter of a priest,6 we do not suspect that she became pregnant. Instead, she may immerse herself [in the mikveh]7and partake [of terumah] in the evening. If she was married to an Israelite and her husband died, she may immerse herself and partake of terumah in the evening [and continue doing so] for 40 days.8 If her fetus is recognized [afterwards], retroactively, her [actions] are objectionable9 from the fortieth day onward. For, throughout the forty days, the embryo is not considered as a fetus, merely as water.
Halacha 4
When a daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and he died, leaving her pregnant,10 her servants11 should not partake of terumah because of the fetus. For only a child that was born entitles others to partake [of terumah]. One which is not born does not entitle others to partake [of terumah]. Therefore if the fetus was a challal [and the woman had other acceptable children, the fetus] does not disqualify the servants from partaking ofterumah.12 Instead, they may partake of it by virtue of his brothers who are acceptable priests until this challal is born, at which point, the servants become forbidden to partake [of terumah].13
Halacha 5
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a yavam? When a daughter of an Israelite is under the obligation to perform yibbum with a priest,14she may not partake of terumah, for [ibid.:11] states: "When a priest will purchase a soul" and this [yavam] has not acquired [the woman] yet.15
When the daughter of a priest is under the obligation to perform yibbum with an Israelite, she is forbidden [to partake of terumah]16 because of her yavam, as [implied by the verse:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a woman under obligation to perform yibbum.17
Halacha 6
When a yavam who is a priest engages in relations with his yevamah by force or without intent or he merely uncovers her and does not complete the act of intercourse,18 he acquires [his yevamah], as stated in Hilchot Yibbum.19Nevertheless, he does not entitle her to partake of terumah until he completes the act of intercourse with her consent.
Halacha 7
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a consecration? When a daughter of a priest is consecrated by an Israelite, she is forbidden to partake [of terumah], for he has already acquired her. When the daughter of an Israelite has been consecrated by a priest, she may not partake [of terumah] until she enters the chupah, lest she give terumah to the members of her father's household, as we explained.22
Halacha 8
When an Israelite tells the daughter of a priest: "Behold, you are consecrated to me after 30 days," she may partake [of terumah] for these 30 days,23 for the consecration has not taken effect yet.24 If, however, he told her: "You are consecrated to me from the present and after 30 days,"25 she is forbidden to partake [of terumah] immediately.26 Similar laws apply with regard to other conditional agreements of this type.27
Halacha 9
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a deaf-mute? When a daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], since he acquires her by virtue of the ordinance of our Sages who instituted marriage for him.28 When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], because he does not acquire [her] according to Scriptural Law,29 because he is not of [adequate] intellectual capacity.
Halacha 10
[When a woman] was consecrated by a priest of ordinary mental capacity, but he did not marry her until he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake [ofterumah].30 [In the above situation, if after consecrating a woman, a priest] died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [ofterumah].31 If, however, he married her when he was of ordinary mental capacity and then became a deaf-mute, she may [continue] to partake [ofterumah].32 If he died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute and he performs yibbum with her, she may [also continue to] partake [of terumah]. [The rationale for the leniency is] that she was partaking of terumahbeforehand.33
When the wife of [a priest who is] a deaf-mute bears him a child, she may partake [of terumah] by virtue of her child.
Halacha 11
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a child of nine years old?34 [When a daughter of a priest] engaged in relations with a child of nine years old who is forbidden to her, since sexual relations in which he engages are significant,35 she is disqualified from the priesthood and forbidden to partake of terumah, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.36 [This applies] even if [the child] is sexually impotent.37
When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is nine years old, even though the relations in which he engages are significant, she is not entitled to partake of terumah because of [this] child, because he cannot acquire her [as his wife] until he reaches majority.38
Halacha 12
All of the relationships [mentioned above] that do not entitle a woman to partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law also do not entitle her to partake of terumah prescribed by Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree lest they have them partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law.
Halacha 13
The [following] individuals neither disqualify [the daughter of a priest from partaking of terumah]43 or enable [the daughter of an Israelite] to partake of it:44a rapist, a seducer,45 or a mentally or emotionally unstable person.46 [This applies] provided she is not forbidden to them, in which instance, they disqualify her through relations, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.47
Halacha 14
When a woman married a priest who was intellectually or emotionally unstable or a priest raped her or seduced her and she bore him a child, she may partake of terumah because of her son.48 There is a doubt concerning the matter, for since she was not consecrated to him, it is possible that she was impregnated by another person. Nevertheless, we operate under the presumption that the child was conceived by [the priest] who engaged in relations with her. [This applies] provided rumors did not circulate concerning her with another person. Instead, everyone gossips about her and this priest.
Similar concepts apply when an Israelite who is intellectually or emotionally unstable engages in relations with the daughter of a priest or [an Israelite] raped or seduced her and she became pregnant. She may not partake ofterumah because of the fetus. If the fetus is is aborted, she may partake [ofterumah].49
Halacha 15
When witnesses concerning a [sotah] warning and witnesses concerning [asotah] meeting testify against a woman50 married [to a priest], she is forbidden to partake of terumah until she drinks the bitter water, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. If her husband dies before she drinks the water or she is one of the women who are absolved from drinking51 and do not receive the money due them by virtue of their ketubah, she is forbidden to partake of terumah forever.52 Whenever the wife of a priest says: "I have been unfaithful," she is forbidden to partake of terumah.53
Halacha 16
When a daughter of an Israelite who has not attained majority marries a priest without her father's consent, whether in his presence or in his absence, she may not partake of terumah even though her father consecrated her.54 [The rationale is that] her father might object and then she would retroactively be unfit [to partake of terumah]. [The reason] he remains silent even though he sees is because he is angry because she married without his consent.55
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This statement is explained in the halachot that follow.
|
| 2. |
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
|
| 3. |
I.e., as soon as the baby is born, the mother is entitled to eat by virtue of her child. Until it is born, however, the restrictions apply.
|
| 4. |
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
|
| 5. |
Rashi (Yevamot 67b) explains that a pregnant woman is excluded, because she does not resemble a maiden.
|
| 6. |
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
|
| 7. |
To purify herself from the impurity she contracted because of the relations in which she engaged (see Leviticus 15:18). Note, however, Chapter 7, Halachah 7, and notes, from which it is apparent that there are times when a woman will have to wait longer.
|
| 8. |
For even if she became pregnant, the pregnancy is not significant as the Rambam continues to explain. Hence, after 40 days passed, she should refrain from partaking of terumah until it is clear that she is not pregnant.
|
| 9. |
She is required to make restoration of the terumah and add a fifth of its value as atonement.
|
| 10. |
Without any other children.
|
| 11. |
She herself may also not partake of terumah, as stated in Halachah 2. This halachah is speaking about her servants that are nichsei tzon barzel and thus belong to the heirs of her husband's estate. Until the fetus is born, it is not a significant entity and the servants that belong to it do not have the right to partake of terumah because of it.
|
| 12. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and maintains that the right of the fetus to the servants is significant even before the fetus is born. Hence, he disqualifies them from partaking of terumah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the relevant Talmudic portions that substantiate the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 13. |
Until the estate is divided and each brother receives his share.
|
| 14. |
Regardless of the age of the prospective yavam.
|
| 15. |
Although she was married to the brother of the yavam, the yavam does not acquire her until he performs yibbum. The Radbaz emphasizes that this ruling applies even if the yavam gave her ama'amar, designating her as his wife.
|
| 16. |
Which, were she not obligated to her yavam, she could partake of by virtue of her membership in the priestly family.
|
| 17. |
Rashi (loc. cit. 67b) explains that such a woman is excluded, because she may not return to her father's home.
|
| 18. |
As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:10, the term "uncover" is of Biblical origin (Leviticus 20:18) and refers to the insertion of the corona alone in the woman's vaginal channel. "Completing relations" refers to the insertion of the entire male organ.
|
| 19. |
Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 2:3.
|
| 20. |
And thus was not yet entitled to partake of terumah by virtue of her initial marriage.
|
| 21. |
I.e., during her first marriage.
|
| 22. |
Chapter 6, Halachah 3, explains that the Sages forbade such a woman from partaking of terumahfor this reason. According to Scriptural Law, she is entitled to partake of it.
|
| 23. |
By virtue of her ancestral right.
|
| 24. |
When a woman's husband words his statement in that manner, the consecration does not take effect until the 30 days pass (Hilchot Ishut 7:10).
|
| 25. |
In which instance, the wording he uses is confusing and there is a doubt whether the consecration takes effect immediately or only after 30 days (ibid.:12).
|
| 26. |
Because of the doubt regarding her status.
|
| 27. |
I.e., if the man consecrated the woman conditionally, but stated that when the condition is fulfilled, the consecration would take effect from the present time (see ibid.: 6:16).
|
| 28. |
According to Scriptural Law, a deaf-mute does not have the capacity to consecrate a woman as his wife. Our Sages, however, desired that these individuals be given a chance to enjoy the basics of family life (see Hilchot Ishut 4:9, 11:4).
|
| 29. |
And the acquisition ordained by our Sages does not have the power to supercede Scriptural Law.
|
| 30. |
For her consecration did not entitle her to partake of terumah and her marriage to a deaf-mute (through yibbum) does not give her this right either.
|
| 31. |
In this instance, the yibbum performed by the deaf-mute creates a marriage-bond that is effective according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the relations with which he engages with her resemble the inadvertent relations mentioned in Halachah 6 and hence do not entitle the woman to partake of terumah.
|
| 32. |
For she is married according to Scriptural Law.
|
| 33. |
And the relations with the yavam restore her to her previous status.
|
| 34. |
The Rambam speaks about a boy "nine years and one day old." Nevertheless, the intent is that he has completed nine years of life and entered his tenth year. Even a portion of a day is considered as an entire day. Thus as soon as a child reaches his ninth birthday, he is nine years and one day old. Hence, for the purpose of brevity, we have translated as above.
|
| 35. |
Although such a child is a minor and not entirely sexually potent, at this age, he is somewhat physically mature. Hence, relations in which he engage are significant to a certain extent. SeeHilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum 1:16; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:13.
|
| 36. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 7.
|
| 37. |
I.e., and he inserted his organ in hers without an erection. The Radbaz explains that this is the fundamental new concept taught by this halachah. Otherwise, it would be obvious that since relations with this child are significant and they are forbidden to this woman, they disqualify her from partaking of terumah.
|
| 38. |
For a male cannot acquire a wife until he reaches majority. Such a marriage is not significant even according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut 11:6-7).
|
| 39. |
In which instance, she would be forbidden to partake of terumah.
|
| 40. |
In which instance, she would be permitted.
|
| 41. |
Because of the doubt.
|
| 42. |
For a child does not reach maturity - and hence, a marriage that he enters is not significant - until he manifests bodily signs, two pubic hairs for a male, that he has reached maturity. Attaining the age of maturity is itself not sufficient (Hilchot Ishut 2:10-11).
Seemingly, this clause is also speaking about an instance where the daughter of a priest is marrying a youth who disqualifies her and the question is whether he is of sufficient physical maturity for the marriage to be significant. In that instance, however, it would be proper to speak of consecration, not marriage. For this reason, Rav Yosef Korcus defines this clause as referring to a daughter of an Israelite who is marrying a priest and the question is whether the marriage entitles her to partake of terumah or not.
|
| 43. |
If the individual involved is an Israelite fit to marry this woman.
|
| 44. |
If the individual involved is a priest.
|
| 45. |
I.e., one who seduced a girl under majority. In that instance, even though the relations were with consent, since the girl is a minor, they are considered to have been carried out against her will.
|
| 46. |
In the first two instances, since the relations were carried out outside the context of marriage, they are not significant with regard to terumah. In the latter instance, since the marriage of an intellectual or emotionally unstable person is of no significance whatsoever (Hilchot Ishut 11:6), the relations are considered as taking place outside the context of marriage.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. In such an instance, the woman is disqualified even if the relations were carried out under duress.
|
| 48. |
Since he is a priest, he entitles his mother to partake of terumah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.
|
| 49. |
I.e., she resumes her previous status.
|
| 50. |
A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery who is subjected to a test of her fidelity by drinking special water, the "bitter water" mentioned by the Rambam, prepared in the Temple. For a woman to be required to take this test, two witnesses must testify that she was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with a particular man and two witnesses must testify that she in fact entered into privacy with the said person (Hilchot Sotah 1:1).
|
| 51. |
See Hilchot Sotah 2:2 which mentions fifteen women that are placed in this category.
|
| 52. |
For the sotah test is necessary to very whether or not she was faithful to her husband and that test is not administered unless the husband is alive (ibid. 2:7).
|
| 53. |
This is not speaking about a sotah, but rather an ordinary woman married to a priest.
Hilchot Ishut 24:23 states that, in this situation, we do not accept the woman's word and we require her to remain married to her husband, for we suspect that she was not unfaithful and made this statement only so that she would be divorced and free to marry someone else. Nevertheless, her word is accepted with regard to terumah and her husband must provide her with other food.
|
| 54. |
Until a girl attains majority, she cannot marry without her father's consent. Thus it is as if the marriage is conditional until he consents and if he does not consent, it is nullified (Hilchot Ishut3:13, 22:5). Hence, we do no allow her to partake of terumah, for if the marriage is nullified, she would have no right to partake of terumah.
|
| 55. |
And does not desire to speak his mind until he calms down.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty One, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Two, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Three • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Twenty One
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty One, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Two, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Three • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Twenty One
Halacha 1
[Regarding the Sabbath,] the Torah [Exodus 23:12] states: "[On the seventh day,] you shall cease activity." [This implies] ceasing [even the performance of certain] activities that are not [included in the categories of the forbidden] labors.1
[The Torah left the definition of the scope of this commandment to] the Sages, [who] forbade many activities as sh'vut. Some activities are forbidden because they resemble the forbidden labors, while other activities are forbidden lest they lead one to commit a forbidden labor. These [activities] include the following:2
Halacha 2
A person who levels crevices [in the ground] is liable for [performing the forbidden labor of] plowing.3 For this reason, it is forbidden to defecate in a field that is lying fallow, lest one come to level crevices.
A person who empties a storeroom [of its contents]4 on the Sabbath, because he needs [the storeroom] for the sake of a mitzvah - e.g., to house guests or to use as a study hall - should not empty the storeroom entirely, lest he come to level crevices within.5
[A person who] has mud on his feet6 may clean it off on a wall7 or on a beam, but not on the ground, lest he level crevices. A person should not spit on the ground and wipe it with his feet, lest crevices be leveled.8 It is, however, permitted to step on spittle that is lying on the ground as one walks, without having any specific intent.9
Halacha 3
It is forbidden for women who [often] play with nuts, almonds, or the like, to play with them on the Sabbath,10 lest they be motivated to level crevices.
It is forbidden to sweep the ground, lest one level crevices,11 unless [the floor] is paved with stone.12 One may, however, sprinkle water on the ground. There is no suspicion that the person will level crevices, since this is not his intent.13
One may not apply oil to the floor,14 even if it is paved, nor may one blow [dust from the floor], nor may one wash it.15 This applies on a holiday,16 and surely on the Sabbath. These acts were forbidden lest a person follow his usual weekday pattern and thus come to level crevices in a place which is not paved.
Halacha 4
When a courtyard has become soiled in the rainy season, one may bring straw17 and spread18 it over [the courtyard]. When a person spreads [the straw], he should not spread it with a basket or with a container, but rather with the underside of the container, so that he will not follow his usual weekday pattern and thus come to level crevices.
Halacha 5
A person who waters seeds [that have been planted] is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] sowing.19 Therefore, it is forbidden to draw water from a cistern using a pulley,20 lest one draw water for one's garden and one's ruin. On this basis, if a cistern with a pulley is located in one's courtyard, it is permitted to use the pulley to draw water.21
Halacha 6
A person who detaches [produce or wood] is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] reaping.22 Accordingly, it is forbidden to remove honey from a beehive on the Sabbath,23 because this resembles detaching [produce].24
We may not climb a tree;25 [this includes both] a fresh tree and one that has dried out.26 We may not suspend [articles from] a tree, nor may we lean on a tree. We may not climb a tree before the commencement of the Sabbath [with the intent of] remaining there for the entire day.27
We may not use any [plant] that is attached to the ground.28 This is a decree, lest one detach [produce].
Halacha 7
Fruit that falls from a tree on the Sabbath may not be eaten until Saturday night; this is a decree lest one detach [produce].29
One may smell a myrtle that is attached [to its bush], because the only benefit one has from it is its fragrance, and its fragrance can be appreciated even when it is attached. In contrast, it is forbidden to smell an etrog, an apple, or any other [fruit] that is fit to be eaten while it is attached [to its tree]. This is a decree enacted lest one pick it to partake of it.30
Halacha 8
It is forbidden to sit on the roots of a tree that project more than three handbreadths above the ground.31 If, however, they are less than three [handbreadths above the ground], they are considered as the ground itself.32
If [the roots] descend from three [handbreadths] above the ground to within three [handbreadths of the ground], it is permitted to make use of them.33 If they are three handbreadths above the ground [on one side] or if there is a cavity three [handbreadths high below them], it is forbidden to sit on them even when one side [of the roots] is level with the ground.34
Halacha 9
We may not ride on an animal on the Sabbath; this is a decree enacted35 lest one cut a branch [to use as a switch] to guide it.36 We may not hang from an animal, nor may we climb onto an animal before the Sabbath so that we can sit upon it on the Sabbath.
We may not support ourselves by leaning on an animal;37 we may, however use articles hanging from an animal as a support.
A person38 who climbs a tree on the Sabbath39 without being aware of the prohibition involved is allowed to descend.40 [In contrast, one who climbs up] in conscious violation [of the prohibition] is forbidden to descend.
[In contrast, should one mount] an animal, one may descend even if one [mounted it] in conscious violation of the prohibition. [This leniency is granted] in consideration of the pain [endured] by the animal.41 Similarly, we may remove a load from an animal on the Sabbath, because of the pain [endured] by the animal.
Halacha 10
What is implied?42 If a person's animal is carrying a haversack of grain, [he may unload the animal in an irregular manner; he should insert his head under [the load, so that] it will be shifted to the other side and fall.43
[The following rules apply when a person] enters [a city] from a journey on Friday night and his animal is carrying a burden: When he reaches the outermost courtyard of the city, he should remove the utensils that may be carried on the Sabbath. Regarding those that may not be carried, he should loosen the ropes that are holding the bags, and allow the sacks to fall.
[The following rules apply] if the sacks contain articles that might break. If the sacks are small, one may bring pillows and blankets and place them under them, so that the sacks will fall on the pillows. [This is permitted] because, if the person desires, he could slip the pillows out from under the sacks, since these sacks are small and light. Thus, one has not nullified the possibility of using a utensil prepared for use on the Sabbath.44
If [the sacks are large and contain] large pieces of glass, one should release the sacks and let them fall. Even if they break, there will not be a great loss, for [such pieces of glass] are intended to be melted down.45 [Therefore, only] a small loss [will be incurred],46and this is of no concern to the Sages.
If the sacks are large and contain glass utensils and the like, one should unload the sacks gently.47 One may not, however, leave them on the animal [for the entire Sabbath], because of the pain the animal [will suffer].
Halacha 11
A person who presses fruits together until they become a single entity is liable for [performing the forbidden labor of] collecting food.48 Therefore, a person whose fruits have been spread throughout his courtyard49 may collect them by hand and partake of them.50 He should not, however, place them into a basket or into a container as he does during the week. Were he to follow his ordinary weekday practice, there is the possibility that he would press them with his hands in the container and perform the forbidden labor of collecting food.51
Similarly, salt or the like should not be collected into a single block, because it appears as if one is collecting food.52
Halacha 12
A person who extracts [food from raw produce is liable for performing a derivative of] threshing. One who squeezes olives and grapes is liable for extracting.53 Therefore, it is forbidden to squeeze berries or pomegranates. Since some people squeeze them [for juice]54 like olives and grapes, [were this to be allowed,] one might come to squeeze olives and grapes. It is, however, permitted to squeeze other fruit - e.g., quince, apples, and crab apples - on the Sabbath, since they are not usually squeezed.55
Halacha 13
It is permitted to squeeze pickled or cooked foods to soften them.56 If, however, one's intent is to extract liquid from them,57 it is forbidden.58
We may not crush snow, so that liquid will flow from it.59 One may, however, crush [snow] into a bowl or into a cup.60
[The following rules apply to] garlic, unripe grapes, and unripe grain that were crushed before the commencement of the Sabbath: If it is necessary that they be crushed [further], it is forbidden to continue crushing them on the Sabbath. If it is necessary that they [merely] be ground by hand,61 it is permitted to complete grinding them on the Sabbath.
Halacha 14
One may remove grain from husks in an abnormal manner so that it does not appear that one is extracting.64
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When grapes or olives are crushed on Friday, the liquids that flow from them on the Sabbath on their own accord are permitted. Similarly, when honeycombs are crushed on Friday, the liquid that flows out on its own accord on the Sabbath is permitted. There is no reason for a prohibition [to be imposed], since they were already crushed on [Friday].72
Halacha 17
Winnowing and selecting are primary categories of [forbidden] labor.73Therefore, even though a person is permitted to remove grain from husks with his fingertips,74 when he blows air [over them to cause the husks to fall],75 he may do so [only while holding them] in one hand,76 blowing with all his strength. He may not, however, use a tray or a pot with compartments,77 lest he use a sifter or a strainer, for which he is liable.
Filtering dregs is a derivative [of either of the forbidden labors] of selecting or of sifting.78 Therefore, even though it is permitted to filter clear wine or clear water79 using a handkerchief or an Egyptian basket,80one should not make a hollow in the handkerchief [to gather the dregs] as one does during the week, lest one filter [dregs] with a filter. Similarly, it is forbidden to hang a filter as one does during the week, lest one filter [dregs with it].81
Halacha 18
[A person who] cuts vegetables into small pieces in order to cook84 them is liable [for performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of grinding.85Therefore, it is forbidden to shred straw86 or carobs87 for animals, whether in large or small pieces, because it appears as if one is grinding.88 One may, however, cut gourds for an animal, or an animal carcass89 for dogs, for there is no concept of grinding regarding fruit.90
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
A person who must pulverize pepper and the like to season food on the Sabbath should crush it with the handle of a knife against the bowl.97 It is forbidden to use a pestle, for one is grinding.98 For this reason, it is forbidden for a healthy person to take medication on the Sabbath. This is a decree [enacted] lest one grind herbs.
Halacha 21
What is implied? A person99 should not partake of foods that are not ordinarily eaten by healthy people100 - e.g., hyssop and piah101 - nor herbs that cause diarrhea - e.g., wormwood and the like. Nor should one drink beverages that are not ordinarily drunk by healthy people - e.g., water cooked with herbs and grasses.
Halacha 22
Halacha 23
[Similar concepts apply regarding oils:] A person is allowed to anoint himself on the Sabbath with oils that healthy people use to anoint themselves, even though his intent is for healing purposes. It is, however, forbidden [to anoint oneself with oils] that are not used by healthy people.109
Halacha 24
Halacha 25
Halacha 26
We may not place hot water or oil124 on a wound, nor on a wad of unprocessed fabric that is above a wound, nor on a wad of unprocessed fabric to be placed on a wound.125 We may, however, apply it outside the wound [so that] it will flow into the wound.
We may place a dry wad of unprocessed fabric on a wound. If, however, it is aged fabric, this is forbidden, since this is like applying a bandage.126
Halacha 27
Halacha 28
One may apply oil and massage132 the intestines on the Sabbath, provided that one applies oil and massages at the same time, so that one will not follow one's weekday practice.
One may not work-out on the Sabbath. What is meant by a work-out? Others tread on a person's body forcefully until he becomes exerted and begins to perspire, or a person walks [vigorously]133 until he exerts himself and begins to perspire. It is forbidden to exert oneself on the Sabbath to the extent of perspiring, for this is a therapeutic practice. Similarly, one may not stand in mud baths in Eretz Yisrael, because this is exerting and therapeutic.
Halacha 29
One may not wash in water that causes diarrhea, nor in quicksand,134 nor in water [in which flax was left to] soak and which has turned foul smelling, nor in the Dead Sea, nor in the foul water in the Mediterranean,135 because all of these cause discomfort, and [Isaiah 58:13] states, "And you shall call the Sabbath a delight."
Accordingly, if one does not remain in these [bodies of water] for an extended time, but rather emerges immediately, it is permitted136even though one has sores on one's scalp.
Halacha 30
We may not scrape our skin with a utensil used for that purpose.137 If, however, one's hands are soiled with feces or with mud, one may scrape in one's ordinary manner without concern.
Halacha 31
A person may not cause himself to vomit food on the Sabbath. When does this apply? When he uses a drug,143 for he may come to crush herbs. It is, however, permitted to place one's hand down one's throat so that one will vomit.
It is forbidden to press the stomach of an infant so that he will defecate,144 lest one give him curative herbs. It is permitted to place a cup over an [infant's] navel to lift it up.145 It is permitted to place a neck-brace or hip-girdle around a child.146 Similarly, one may lift up [the tendons of a child's] ears, whether by hand or with an instrument, and lift up cartilage on one's chest.147 For all of these [activities] are performed [by hand], and not with herbs. Since [the person] is in pain and there is no suspicion that one may crush [herbs,] [these activities are permitted].148
Halacha 32
Sifting is one of the categories of forbidden labor.149 Therefore, we may not sift straw in a sieve or place a sieve with straw in a high place so that the chaff will fall,150 since this is like sifting. One may, however, place straw in a sieve and carry it to [an animal's] feeding trough, even though the chaff falls while one is transferring it, since this is not one's intent.151
Halacha 33
A person who creates a mixture of small particles and water is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] kneading.152 Therefore, one may not make a mixture of a large amount of roasted flour,153 lest one come to knead unroasted flour.154 One may, however, mix [small amounts] of roasted [flour] a little at a time.
In contrast, shatit, i.e., grain that has not matured to a third of its fullness155and is roasted and coarsely ground, resembles sand. Large quantities of it may be mixed with vinegar and the like at once, provided the mixture is soft.156 If it is firm, it is forbidden, for it appears as though one is kneading.
[Even when making a soft mixture,] one must deviate from one's ordinary practice. What is implied? First, one must put in the shatit and then the vinegar.157
Halacha 34
Although bran does not produce a mixture resembling a dough,158 it is forbidden to be mixed with water, lest one mix earth159 and the like.
One may pour water over bran and stir it with a spoon in all directions.160 One may not mix it with one's hands, so that it will not appear that one is kneading. If it does not mix well, one may pour it from one container to another until it mixes well, and then give it to the chickens or the oxen.
It is permissible to mix bran in the above manner in one container and then divide it into several containers, giving each animal [its portion]. One may mix even a kor or two korim [of bran together] in one container.161
Halacha 35
One may not [force-]feed domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl on the Sabbath in the same way as one feeds them during the week, lest one crush beans, knead flour, or [perform another] similar [activity].162
What is implied? On the Sabbath, one should not feed a camel enough food for three or four days.163 One may not throw down a calf or the like, hold its mouth open and pour in beans and water at one time.164 Similarly, one may not place [food deep] in the mouths of doves or chickens, in a place from which they cannot spit it out.
One may, however, feed an animal while it is standing and give it water while it is standing,165 or one may place both water and beans separately in its mouth,166 provided it is possible for [the animal] to spit them up. Similarly, one may feed fowl by hand as long as they can spit the food up.167 Needless to say, one may place food before the animals so that they can eat.
Halacha 36
When does [the license to feed animals] mentioned above apply? Regarding an animal that one is responsible for feeding - e.g., one's domesticated animals, one's beasts, doves raised within one's home, geese, and chickens.168 One may not, by contrast, provide food or water for animals that one is not responsible for feeding - e.g., pigs,169 doves raised in a dovecote, and bees.170
A person may lead his animal directly to grass that is still growing and allow it to eat. He may not, by contrast, lead it to [food] that has been set aside [not to be used on the Sabbath].171One may, nevertheless, stand in front of the animal until it turns, and, on its own accord, heads to the food that has been set aside and partakes of it. The same [laws apply] on the holidays.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 1, this statement has raised the attention of the commentaries concerned with how the Rambam defines the scope of the positive commandment to cease activity on the Sabbath. Many authorities explain that this positive commandment is merely a restatement of the prohibition against performing forbidden labors. Others (see the commentary of the Ramban on Leviticus 23:24) understand the command as requiring a person must to refrain from any and all activities that will disturb the Sabbath atmosphere of serene rest. The Rambam's wording in this halachah appears to support the latter view.
Support for this opinion can also be drawn from the phraseology chosen by the Rambam in Chapter 24, Halachah 12, the conclusion of the discussion of this issue in the Mishneh Torah:
In this quote as well, the Rambam emphasizes that the commandment to rest in Exodus 23:12encompasses holding back from performing any activity that will disturb the atmosphere of rest and peace that characterizes the Sabbath.
|
| 2. |
The Rambam uses the next four chapters to delineate various activities that were forbidden because of the two reasons he mentions above. In his discussion of this matter, he gives examples of activities that are related to each of the categories of forbidden labor.
|
| 3. |
This refers to a person who levels crevices in a field (Chapter 8, Halachah 1). If one performs such an activity in a home, one is liable for performing the forbidden labor of building (Chapter 10, Halachah 12).
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 26, Halachah 15.
|
| 5. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 18:1), the Rambam elaborates on this concept, explaining that a person who removes the contents of a storeroom is likely to discover cracks and crevices in the ground. Our Sages, therefore, imposed this restriction lest he level the floor. Indeed, the only reason the person is allowed to empty the storeroom is that he intends to perform a mitzvah.
|
| 6. |
Or shoes (Ramah, Orach Chayim 302:6).
|
| 7. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also mentions an opinion that forbids wiping the mud on a stone wall, lest it appear that one is replastering the wall.
|
| 8. |
See the Mishnah Berurah 316:49, which questions whether this restriction applies to a paved or unpaved floor. (In this context, see also the Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 7:2.)
|
| 9. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites the use of a similar expression in Chapter 11, Halachah 4. In the notes on that halachah, it is explained that there are two interpretations of the phrase: a) that one may intentionally step on the substance in question and merely make it appear that one is doing so accidentally; b) that one may proceed without worrying whether one steps on the substance or not. (See also the restatement of this law in Chapter 26, Halachah 13.)
|
| 10. |
When mentioning this law, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 338:5) cites the Rambam's statements in Chapter 23, Halachah 17, which forbid gambling on the Sabbath. Thus, to avoid redundancy, we are forced to say that the play mentioned here is obviously mere sport. Nevertheless, it is forbidden for the reasons mentioned above.
|
| 11. |
The Rambam appears to forbid sweeping the floor, lest in the process of doing so, one decides to level the floor. Since both sweeping and leveling are intended to make one's floor look attractive, it is likely that while a person is involved in one activity, he will also perform the other (Rav Yitzchak ben Sheshet, Responsum 394).
Other commentaries explain that the reason is that it is inevitable that a person will level an earthen floor while sweeping it. Therefore, sweeping is forbidden even though the person does not intend to level the floor, based on the principle the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
|
| 12. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 337:2) follows the Rambam's ruling and allows one to sweep a paved floor. The Ramah, however, differs and maintains that it is forbidden. (See theBe'ur Halachah 337, which cites many opinions that encourage leniency.) Even those opinions that allow one to sweep emphasize that one must be careful regarding the type of broom used. A broom whose bristles are likely to break may not be used.
|
| 13. |
This refers to sprinkling water in a house to keep the dust from rising. Although there is a possibility that the water and the dust will collect and cause the floor to become level, there is no prohibition because this is not the person's intent. As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 1, Halachah 5, a person may perform an act that causes a forbidden labor to be accomplished if he does not intend for that labor to be accomplished, and there is not an absolute certainty that it will be accomplished.
|
| 14. |
In Talmudic times, oil was frequently applied to the floor of a bathhouse. (See Shabbat 40b.)
|
| 15. |
Sweeping a floor is considered a necessary act to maintain an atmosphere of cleanliness on the Sabbath. These other activities, however, are not as essential (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 337:4; Mishnah Berurah 337:17).
|
| 16. |
Note, however, Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:16, which states that after the Paschal offerings had been sacrificed, the floor of the Temple courtyard was washed, even when the celebration of Pesach began on the Sabbath. All the prohibitions of the category of sh'vut were not enforced in the Temple.
|
| 17. |
Straw is acceptable for this purpose since it is fit to be eaten by an animal. Hence, it will not be considered as having been made a permanent part of the courtyard. If, by contrast, earth, pebbles, or sand are used, they would be considered as having been permanently incorporated into the floor of the courtyard. This is considered as building and is, hence, forbidden (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 313:24; Mishnah Berurah 313:55).
|
| 18. |
When quoting this halachah (which is based on Eruvin 104a), the Shulchan Aruch uses a different verb, זורה, which means "toss into." This difference also leads to a variation in the manner in which the concept mentioned in our halachah's final clause is interpreted there.
|
| 19. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.
|
| 20. |
Eruvin 104a relates that water was drawn from a cistern by a pulley in the Temple, but that this is forbidden outside the Temple premises.
|
| 21. |
The location of the cistern clearly indicates that its water is intended to be used for household purposes. In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo explains that even if a cistern is not located in a courtyard, as long as it is distant from a place where the water might be used for commercial purposes, one may draw water with a pulley. In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 338:6), he mentions further leniencies.
|
| 22. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
|
| 23. |
If, however, the honey has oozed or has been removed from the beehive before the commencement of the Sabbath, it may be used. (See the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah [Orach Chayim 321:13].)
|
| 24. |
Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 10:7).
|
| 25. |
This prohibition, as all the others mentioned in this halachah, was also instituted lest one detach fruit from a tree. (Note also the Shulchan Aruch [Orach Chayim 372:15], which mentions an exception to this principle.)
|
| 26. |
The commentaries question whether the Rambam's intent is that one is liable for detaching wood from a dried tree, or that this is merely a safeguard. (See Magen Avraham 336:1.)
|
| 27. |
See Halachah 9 regarding whether or not a person who climbs a tree is allowed to descend on the Sabbath.
|
| 28. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 312:6), which mentions an exception to this principle.
|
| 29. |
Rav Moshe Cohen differs with the rationale given by the Rambam and explains that the reason these fruits are forbidden is that they are considered muktzeh, i.e., since picking them would involve transgressing a prohibition, one does not consider using them on the Sabbath. Others explain that they are forbidden, because they are nolad, i.e., the potential to use them did not come about until after the commencement of the Sabbath. Accordingly, it is forbidden to move them on the Sabbath. From the location in the Shulchan Aruch in which this law appears, Orach Chayim 322:3, one might infer that Rav Yosef Karo follows Rav Moshe Cohen's opinion.
The Rambam accepts the principle of nolad only in regard to the festivals, and not in regard to the Sabbath (see Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:17) and does not consider the concept of muktzehapplicable here.
|
| 30. |
The Rambam follows Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's version of Sukkot 37b. Rabbenu Chanan'el and others reverse the laws and grant the leniency regarding smelling an etrog and the like, but not a myrtle. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 336:10) quotes the Rambam's view.
|
| 31. |
This is considered equivalent to climbing a tree (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin10:8).
|
| 32. |
Based on the principle of l'vud.
|
| 33. |
I.e., the portion that is within three handbreadths of the ground.
|
| 34. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 336:2) mentions that it is even forbidden for them to sit on the side of the roots that is level with the ground. The difference between this law and the previous one is that in the previous law, the roots themselves descended within three handbreadths of the ground. In this law, a portion of the ground is upraised and is level with the roots.
|
| 35. |
Although one is forbidden to cause an animal to carry a burden, riding an animal is not forbidden according to the Torah, because of the principle, "a living being carries itself." Nevertheless, there is a Rabbinic prohibition involved, as the Rambam explains.
|
| 36. |
Beitzah 36b mentions another reason: perhaps one will ride beyond the Sabbath limits. Apparently the Rambam does not see these two positions as mutually exclusive.
Note, however, the Chatam Sofer (Vol. VI, Responsum 96), who writes that our Sages were motivated by a desire to have animals rest on the Sabbath, and the rationales mentioned in the Talmud were of secondary importance. Sefer HaKovetz notes that, in fact, the Jerusalem Talmud mentions the desire that animals rest as the source for this law.
|
| 37. |
When our Sages forbade riding on an animal, they also forbade using an animal for any other purpose (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:23; Mishnah Berurah 305:62). These prohibitions apply in all places, even in a desert where there are no trees from which one might detach a branch.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this prohibition applies also regarding articles hanging from trees. Support for this position can be derived from the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Sukkah4:6, which prohibit use of both a sukkah constructed in a tree as well as one on an animal's back on the first day of the holiday.
|
| 38. |
If, however, a utensil was placed in a tree on or before the Sabbath, it may not be removed (Maggid Mishneh; Ramah [Orach Chayim 336:1]).
|
| 39. |
If, however, he climbed the tree before the commencement of the Sabbath, he may descend on the Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh). Although the Rambam's view is accepted by most authorities, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also mentions a more stringent opinion.
|
| 40. |
Although the person makes use of the tree in his process of descent, this is not forbidden. For the alternative available to him, staying in the tree for the entire Sabbath, also involves making use of the tree (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 336:2; Mishnah Berurah 336:6).
|
| 41. |
See Chapter 25, Halachah 26, for added leniencies granted in consideration of suffering endured by an animal. (See also the commentaries on Hilchot Rotzeach 13:9,13, which discuss the halachic ramifications of this principle. Note also The Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, chapter 17.)
|
| 42. |
The restrictive process of unloading an animal's burden described by the Rambam in this halachah is necessary only when the articles the animal is carrying are muktzeh (forbidden to be moved on the Sabbath day). If the articles are not muktzeh, they may be unloaded in an ordinary manner, provided one does not lean on the animal.
From this, the Mishnah Berurah 305:65 derives that the prohibition against causing an animal's suffering is not strong enough to supersede the prohibition against muktzeh.
|
| 43. |
Although the grain is muktzeh, as long as one does not move it with one's hands, one is not violating the prohibition (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:24). See also Chapter 24:14-15.
|
| 44. |
There are commentaries that emphasize that this is also a leniency. It is forbidden to nullify the possibility of using a utensil even temporarily. Hence, the only reason that putting the pillows under the sacks is permitted is that there is a substantial loss involved (Mishnah Berurah266:27).
Note, however, the Maggid Mishneh, who mentions opinions that explain that since one can remove the pillows one by one at any time, one is never nullifying a utensil from being used.
|
| 45. |
Rashi (Shabbat 154b) offers a slightly different interpretation of the type of glass used and the purpose for which it was intended.
|
| 46. |
I.e., although the larger pieces will break when they fall, the broken pieces that will remain will also be able to be used for the original purpose. Only a small quantity of glass will be totally useless.
|
| 47. |
Although unloading the glass utensils slowly will inevitably involve lifting the forbidden articles slightly, the Sages permitted this because of the loss involved (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:24).
Note also Shulchan Aruch Harav 266:25, which grants a further leniency and allows pillows and covers to be placed under large utensils in the case of a substantial loss, if there is no other alternative. Even though there is no way to remove the pillows from under the utensils on the Sabbath, this leniency is permitted because of the potential loss. The Be'ur Halachah 266 explains that this is a matter of controversy among the halachic authorities.
|
| 48. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
|
| 49. |
The commentaries note that the Rambam's words seem to indicate that one is liable for collecting produce even when one does so far from the place where the produce originally grew. This issue is a point of disagreement among the commentaries. (See the notes on Chapter 8, Halachah 5.)
|
| 50. |
Significantly, Tosafot, Shabbat 143b, suggests omitting the phrase "and partake of them." (Note the Be'ur Halachah 335.)
|
| 51. |
Although the prohibition against gathering produce is explicitly stated in Shabbat 143b, the rationale for the prohibition is a matter of debate among the halachic authorities. The reason suggested by the Rambam is not accepted by most, and other reasons are offered:
a) it is possible that pebbles might be mixed in with the produce and thus one might come to perform the forbidden labor of separating (Rashba);
b) gathering produce is a weekday activity and its performance runs contrary to the atmosphere of peace and rest prevalent on the Sabbath (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 335). These are the rationales reflected in the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 335:5).
|
| 52. |
According to the Torah, the forbidden labor of collecting food applies only with regard to the produce of the earth (Shabbat 73b; Chapter 8, Halachah 5). Nevertheless, the Rabbis extended the scope of the prohibition and forbade collecting other foods as well.
|
| 53. |
See Chapter 8, Halachot 7 and 10. Rashi, Shabbat 143b, explains that the reason is that the primary purpose that grapes and olives are grown is for these liquids. With regard to other fruits, by contrast, it is not as common to use them for juice. From his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:1), it appears that the Rambam also accepts this rationale.
(Rabbenu Nissim gives another reason: The juices of other fruits are not considered to be liquids, but rather food. See Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 1:4. The Pri Megadim and others consider these to be two separate rationales.)
|
| 54. |
This prohibition includes all fruits that are frequently used for juice (Ramah, Orach Chayim320:1). Significantly, however, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6) states that one may squeeze lemons. The Mishnah Berurah 320:22, however, questions that decision, because it is customary in many places to use lemons for juice. A similar question applies regarding many other fruit juices that are now far more popular than they were in previous generations.
|
| 55. |
The basis for this opinion is that even if a person desires to squeeze the fruit juice for use as a beverage, since the popular practice is not to do so, his individual intent is of no consequence. There are, however, opinions that maintain that a person is forbidden to squeeze juice from fruit if he desires to use it as a beverage.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 320:1 states that, even though the halachic basis of the first view is sounder, in places where it is customary to follow the second view, the stringency should be maintained. (See also the Be'ur Halachah 320.)
|
| 56. |
Or to prepare them to be used as food in any other way. For example, to squeeze the oil from noodles (Mishnah Berurah 320:24,25).
|
| 57. |
As mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 10, even when one squeezes a food with the intent of removing its liquid, there is no prohibition involved if one squeezes the liquid directly into food. The rationale is that when a liquid is absorbed in food, its own identity is of no consequence. Hence, it is as if one is separating food from food. This concept is reflected in the rulings of theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 320:7).
|
| 58. |
The prohibition is, however, only Rabbinic in origin. This follows Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Shabbat 145a. Rabbenu Chanan'el rules that a person who squeezes these foods for the sake of their liquids is liable for transgressing a Torah prohibition.
|
| 59. |
For this resembles crushing grapes or olives to produce wine or oil (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). The Maggid Mishneh continues, explaining that other commentaries (see Rashi,Shabbat 51b, Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 320) maintain that the prohibition stems from the fact that one is bringing into existence a new entity (nolad) on the Sabbath. It appears that the Rambam and the Rashba do not accept that rationale.
|
| 60. |
Rashi, Rabbenu Nissim, and others state that this refers to a cup or a bowl filled with liquid. They explain that this is permitted because the water from the snow will flow directly into this other liquid and will never exist as a separate distinct entity. The Rambam does not make such a distinction, and appears to allow squeezing the snow into an empty cup. It is possible that, according to the Rambam, this leniency also applies to the pickled and cooked foods mentioned in the first clause of this halachah. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 320:6.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 320:9) states this law slightly differently: "One may place [snow] into a cup of wine or water so that it melts." Here, also, the Rambam is being more lenient, allowing the person to crush the snow by hand. The later authorities follow the ruling of theShulchan Aruch.
|
| 61. |
Note the Maggid Mishneh's treatment of this subject in his gloss on Chapter 3, Halachah 2. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, the leniency of this halachah is that one may perform an act to continue grinding these substances.
|
| 62. |
In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that this refers to mixing meat, grain, and soup into a single mixture.
|
| 63. |
It is, however, forbidden to perform this activity while the pot is on the fire. Inevitably, one will stir the pot's contents, and this is considered part of the cooking process (Chapter 9, Halachah 4).
|
| 64. |
It is, however, forbidden to perform this activity while the pot is on the fire. Inevitably, one will stir the pot's contents, and this is considered part of the cooking process (Chapter 9, Halachah 4).
|
| 65. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 10.
|
| 66. |
We have quoted the view of Tosafot (Yevamot 113a). Sucking milk fresh from an animal is considered a cure for pain felt in one's heart. The Rabbis question if this leniency also extends to a person groaning from hunger.
|
| 67. |
An animal is generally milked into a container.
|
| 68. |
I.e., without any human activity being performed on the Sabbath day. As opposed to the following halachah, this applies to fruit that was not crushed before the Sabbath.
|
| 69. |
Since the primary purpose for which these fruits are used is to produce beverages, the Rabbis instituted the following prohibition even when the person purchased these fruits to eat (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 320:1).
|
| 70. |
Which are often used to produce juice, as mentioned in Halachah 12. As mentioned in that halachah, the Rambam allows one to squeeze other fruits for juice. Surely there are no prohibitions against liquids that flow from them.
As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, the Ramah (loc. cit.) states that whenever it is customary to drink a fruit's juice, the situation is governed by the laws that apply to pomegranates and berries.
|
| 71. |
Since the person intended to eat the fruit, he does not appreciate the fact that liquid has flowed from them and is not likely to squeeze them to produce more (Mishnah Berurah 320:6).
If the person brought them home with no specific intention, any liquid that flows from them is prohibited (ibid.).
|
| 72. |
There is another opinion in the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:1), which forbids using liquid that flows from crushed honeycombs, lest one come to crush other ones on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, in practice, the more lenient view is accepted.
|
| 73. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
|
| 74. |
See Halachah 14.
|
| 75. |
By blowing the air over them, he causes the husks to fall. Alternatively, this prohibition can be interpreted to refer to fanning the grain with one's hand or sifting it in the air. This appears to be the conception of the Shulchan Aruch which employs the word מנפה, "sift," rather than מנפח, "blow."
Although blowing away the chaff is part of the forbidden labor of winnowing, it is permitted, because one's intent is to partake of the food directly afterwards. See a parallel in Chapter 8, Halachah 12, in regard to the forbidden labor of separating.
|
| 76. |
Implied is that using two hands is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 319:7)
|
| 77. |
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 8, Halachah 12, our translation of these terms is taken from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Keilim 16:3. Most commentaries follow other interpretations. (See Ramah, loc. cit..)
|
| 78. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 11, which states that three forbidden categories of labor - winnowing, selecting, and sifting - are very similar. Nevertheless, "every labor that was performed in the Sanctuary is counted as a separate category."
In Chapter 8, Halachah 14, the Rambam speaks of filtering wine and water, mentioning several of the points touched on in this halachah.
|
| 79. |
But not wine or water that is filled with dregs.
|
| 80. |
See, however, Chapter 22, Halachah 33, where the Rambam mentions how one must hold the Egyptian basket lest one violate a Rabbinic prohibition against erecting a tent.
|
| 81. |
Significantly, there are authorities who associate this prohibition with the prohibition against erecting a tent. (See also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:14 and the Mishnah Berurah 319:49, which explain that the prohibition against hanging a filter was instituted to prevent involvement with "mundane activity.")
This refers to hanging the filter over a container in the manner in which one filters beverages. There is no prohibition, however, against hanging the filter in the open air (Mishnah Berurah315:36).
|
| 82. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
|
| 83. |
Note the gloss of Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil and the Magen Avraham 319:19, who question the connection between mixing nuts into honey and making cheese. The Tosefta, Shabbat 13:12, mentions mixing nuts and honey in connection with the forbidden labor of kneading. Kinat Eliyahuexplains that the Rambam's intent might be that just as when curdling milk for cheese one makes a single block of food from liquid, so too, one accomplishes the same objective by making such a candy.
|
| 84. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo notes that the Rambam's wording here (and in Chapter 7, Halachah 5) appears to indicate that one is liable for grinding only when cutting produce with the intention of cooking it. If, however, one intends to eat the produce raw - e.g., in a salad - one is not liable.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo concludes by stating that this interpretation is not absolutely imperative. In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 321:12), however, he states that one who cuts produce is liable for grinding without any qualification. The Ramah, in his gloss, clarifies that one is liable only when one cuts the vegetables and then stores them for later use. If one partakes of them immediately, one is not liable.
The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 321:10; Mishnah Berurah 321:45) mention opinions that question the leniency mentioned by the Ramah. They also emphasize that the Ramah granted permission to cut the vegetables only with a knife. Even he forbids using a grater or similar utensil.
|
| 85. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.
|
| 86. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 24:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to stalks of grain or beans that are harvested as animal fodder, before their produce matures.
|
| 87. |
The Mishnah Berurah 324:23 states that this refers to soft carobs that can be eaten without difficulty even when they are not cut. Carobs that have already hardened are forbidden to be cut. There is, however, room for questioning whether the Rambam would make such a distinction.
|
| 88. |
In the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 324:7), Rav Yosef Karo differs with the Rambam and states that the reason for these prohibitions is that it is forbidden to undertake any unnecessary effort to prepare food for animals. Since these foods could be eaten without being shredded, it is forbidden to shred them on the Sabbath.
|
| 89. |
This refers even to an animal that died on the Sabbath itself. It is not considered muktzeh and may be served to dogs. Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah 324:17, which questions whether this leniency applies if the animal was healthy before the commencement of the Sabbath. In this context, note Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:17, 2:16.
|
| 90. |
In this instance, we have translated the word פירות as "fruit," rather than "produce" in order to avoid a difficulty mentioned by the commentaries. The Maggid Mishneh states that he has seen texts of the Mishneh Torah that read "for grinding applies only regarding produce." Although he favors that version over the one found in the standard texts, he finds neither to be fully satisfying.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Maggid Mishneh's equivocation as follows. The standard text is problematic, since straw and carobs are also produce, and if there were no prohibition against grinding produce, there would be no reason to forbid shredding them. The amended version, however, is also somewhat difficult, since gourds are also produce.
Rav Yosef Karo himself favors the standard text and states that the phrase "there is no concept of grinding regarding..." is the rationale for the prohibition against shredding carobs.
To explain: The word פירות in this instance has a more restricted meaning, meaning "fruit" rather than "produce." The concept of grinding applies only with regard to grains and vegetables, but not with regard to fruit. Therefore, the prohibition against shredding carobs is only Rabbinic in origin. Although the clause pertaining to gourds and animal carcasses interposes between the clause regarding carobs and the rationale explaining it, that is not an insurmountable difficulty.
|
| 91. |
With the palms of one's hands (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 24:2).
|
| 92. |
Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), which interprets all the terms in the relevant clause as referring to sheaves of straw, in contrast to Rashi and others, who interpret one term as referring to cedar bows. (See also the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh, who struggle to explain how the Rambam's ruling is derived from Shabbat 155a, the source for this halachah.)
|
| 93. |
This refers to the principle stated in Shabbat (ibid.) and quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:4), which states that we are able to lay out food for an animal to eat. We may not, however, undertake any extra difficulty to make the food more attractive and more accessible for the animal.
|
| 94. |
From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 8:1), it appears that all three of these terms refer to species of hyssop. Hyssop is often used as animal fodder, but is occasionally employed as food for humans, and at times is used as kindling wood.
|
| 95. |
If, however, they are stored for use as kindling wood, it is forbidden to take them, as stated in Chapter 26, Halachah 18.
|
| 96. |
Note the slight difference in the manner in which this law is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 321:1).
|
| 97. |
Compare to Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:12, which states that one may crush peppers with a mortar and pestle.
|
| 98. |
Thus, one must depart from one's ordinary process in two ways, using the handle of a knife instead of a mortar, and using a bowl instead of a pestle.
|
| 99. |
This refers to a person who feels discomfort, but whose life is not in danger, nor would he be classified as being חולה, "sick." Therefore, the various leniencies mentioned in Chapter 2 do not apply to him.
|
| 100. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:37) states that these restrictions apply only to a person who feels discomfort. A person who is totally healthy may partake of foods that are usually eaten only for medicinal purposes. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:43 and the Mishnah Berurah 328:120, however, qualify this leniency and state that if the person's intent is to enhance his health, it is forbidden even when he has no signs of illness.
|
| 101. |
A plant with red roots, used for dyeing or for medical purposes.
|
| 102. |
Even one suffering from discomfort.
|
| 103. |
As reflected by a comparison to the previous halachah, there are several species of hyssop, some eaten by healthy people and some used primarily for medicinal purposes.
|
| 104. |
When stating this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:37) mentions that even if it is obvious that the person is partaking of the food for medicinal purposes, since this food is also frequently eaten for other reasons, there is no prohibition.
|
| 105. |
A plant known as asafetida, possessing a resin that is bitter tasting, and which is used as a remedy for chest pains (Meiri).
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:3), the Rambam states that a beverage produced from this plant is often drunk by people in cold lands because of the warm sensation it produces.
|
| 106. |
As indicated by Chapter 22, Halachah 7, once a person has begun drinking chiltit, he should continue. Otherwise, he risks the possibility of falling sick. Therefore, even though most healthy people in a community do not partake of this beverage, a person who has become accustomed to it may continue.
|
| 107. |
This is the text recommended by the Maggid Mishneh according to the explanation given in the previous note. There are, however, versions of the Mishneh Torah that read, "A person who has drunk chiltit... may drink it in places where it is not customary for healthy people to drink chiltit." According to this version, chiltit is being given as an example of the concept stated in the first clause of this halachah.
|
| 108. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:1), the Rambam defines this as a beverage made from water, into which salt, barley flour, and wild saffron are mixed. Shabbat 101a explains that this beer helps people with stomach discomforts.
|
| 109. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 327:1), who writes that at present it is not common for healthy people to apply oil to themselves. Therefore, it is forbidden to apply oil to oneself with any oil on the Sabbath for therapeutic purposes.
|
| 110. |
These liquids are not usually applied to the body. Therefore, when one applies them, it is obvious that one's intent is for medicinal purposes. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 327:1), which states "one may not apply a mixture of oil and vinegar" and does not mention the application of vinegar alone.
|
| 111. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 14:4) records an opinion that states that only "the sons of kings" may apply rose oil. Rabbi Shimon, however, grants this license universally, for "all Jews are the sons of kings." Shabbat 111b, however, restricts this leniency to places where this oil is freely available.
|
| 112. |
Shabbat 66b mentions that soaking one's hands and feet in a mixture of oil and salt is a remedy for intoxication.
|
| 113. |
To stop the flow of blood. This refers to a wound that was not caused by an iron utensil, nor one that is located in a place where bleeding might be dangerous. In these instances, one may dress the wound in a normal manner even if it is necessary to violate the Sabbath laws (Shulchan Aruch Harav 328:34; Mishnah Berurah 328:91).
|
| 114. |
Nor in beverages with high alcoholic content (Mishnah Berurah 328:92).
|
| 115. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 14:4) gives another alternative: Dipping one's food in vinegar.
|
| 116. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:39 mentions opinions that permit this only when the oil is mixed with vegetable juice, since otherwise it is not the usual practice to drink oil.
|
| 117. |
This refers to raw gum taken from trees, and not to commercially prepared chewing gum.
|
| 118. |
Some authorities forbid brushing one's teeth if one's gums are likely to bleed. Similarly, using toothpaste is forbidden.
|
| 119. |
The same principles apply to the use of mouthwash.
|
| 120. |
Based on Rashi, Shabbat 108b, the Shulchan Aruch 328:20 forbids opening and closing one's eye to let the wine in, even when the wine was applied to one's eyelids.
|
| 121. |
Note the apparent contradiction to Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which states that one may leave eye salve on one's eye on Friday, implying that the salve must be applied before the commencement of the Sabbath, and not afterwards.
From a comparison to the quotation of the laws in the Shulchan Aruch 252:5 and 328:21, the following resolution may be offered. When one applies an eye salve itself to one eye, it must be applied before the Sabbath. If, however, the salve is mixed with water and is no longer a distinct entity, one may rinse one's eyes with it on the Sabbath.
|
| 122. |
From the manner in which the Ramah (Orach Chayim 328:24) and others state this law, it would appear that the intent is not that the reed be used as a bandage, but that it has other therapeutic qualities as well.
|
| 123. |
Eruvin 10:14 mentions that this was permitted in the Temple, because it was not necessary to observe the prohibitions classified as sh'vut there. (See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 10:9.) From this statement, the Rambam derived that this is forbidden outside the Temple's premises.
|
| 124. |
Although this appears to be the Rambam's intent, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:22) quotes this prohibition as referring to oil and hot water mixed together.
|
| 125. |
Here there is an added difficulty. One may squeeze the liquids from the wadding when applying them to the wound and it is forbidden to squeeze liquids from a cloth.
|
| 126. |
Note the differences between the manner in which this law is stated by the Rambam and by theShulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:23).
|
| 127. |
As long as the bandage has not fallen on the ground, it is considered as if it merely slipped off the wound, and therefore it may be returned to its place.
It must be emphasized that the bandages referred to here are those to which salves or other liquids have been applied. Applying such a bandage resembles smearing substances. There is no restriction against placing a bandaid or other dry bandage on a wound on the Sabbath. SeeShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:23-24).
|
| 128. |
Eruvin 102b and the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:25) interpret this prohibition as a safeguard, lest one come to spread a salve. Since the bandage was applied on Friday, there is no reason for a safeguard lest one grind herbs.
|
| 129. |
Outside the Temple, there is a prohibition against placing a bandage on a wound for the first time on the Sabbath, lest one grind herbs, and lest one spread the salves. Nevertheless, since both these prohibitions are considered in the category of sh'vut, they are waived in the Temple.
This is the explanation according to the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, and this text is accepted by Rav Kapach and Rav Frankel in their texts of the Mishneh Torah. The Maggid Mishneh, however, questions this version of the text based on the Eruvin 10:13, which states, "We may return a bandage [to a wound] in the Temple, but not elsewhere." Indeed, his question is reinforced by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, which states that outside of the Temple, one may not return a bandage to its place after it has fallen to the ground. In the Temple, however, this is permitted. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to place a bandage on a wound for the first time on the Sabbath even in the Temple.
Nevertheless, several of the later commentaries (Seder HaMishneh; Or Sameach) attempt to justify the standard text of the Mishneh Torah, basing their explanations on the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:16, where the Rambam states that when Pesach was celebrated on the Sabbath, the priests would wash the floor of the Temple Courtyard on the Sabbath to clean away the blood and refuse from the Paschal sacrifices.
In the source for that halachah, Pesachim 65a, there is a difference of opinion on this matter among the Sages. Rabbi Natan maintains that the only time a prohibition that is in the category ofsh'vut is suspended in the Temple is when transgressing it is necessary for the Temple service. Therefore, he rules that it is forbidden to wash the Temple floor on such an occasion, for doing so is an expression of respect for the Temple, but is not a necessity for its service to continue.
From the fact that the Rambam rejects Rabbi Natan's view, it is clear that he maintains that - as he says simply in this halachah - "The prohibitions classified as sh'vut do not apply in the Temple" - i.e., they do not apply at all. The Mishnah in Eruvin follows Rabbi Natan's opinion. Therefore, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains Rabbi Natan's position. This explanation does not reflect the Rambam's own view; that is expressed in our halachah.
|
| 130. |
For the priests were careful and would not come to violate a Torah prohibition (the gloss of Rabbenu Yehonatan, Eruvin 102b).
|
| 131. |
Significantly, when the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:26 cites this law, it changes the wording slightly and states, "for one is spreading [a salve]." Spreading a salve is a derivative of the forbidden labor of smoothing, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 6.
|
| 132. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:6).
|
| 133. |
The Tosefta (Shabbat 17:22) states, "One may not run for exercise on the Sabbath, but one may walk leisurely the entire day." Note also the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:2), which grants license for youths to perform calisthenics on the Sabbath if they enjoy doing so. Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah, which emphasizes that the license is granted only when one enjoys the physical activity, and not when one does so for health purposes.
|
| 134. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that these two phrases refer to alternate explanations offered by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi of the expression, "We do not go down to Kordima (alt. Poltima)," in the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:6). Although in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that Mishnah differently, both the interpretations given by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi represent valid halachic points.
|
| 135. |
One may, however, bathe in the pleasant waters of the Mediterranean, even though they are salty (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:44).
|
| 136. |
For it appears that one has entered these bodies of water to cool off (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 137. |
Rashi, Shabbat 147b, explains that this prohibition was instituted to prevent "ordinary activity." On this basis, the Magen Avraham 327:1 relates that if one has a utensil designated for use on the Sabbath, this would be permitted. It is questionable, however, whether the Rambam accepts that rationale and that leniency.
|
| 138. |
The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary, Shabbat 53b. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:28) which states that this leniency applies only in places where it is common for people to annoint themselves with oil.
|
| 139. |
I.e., even when the wound has begun to heal and the scabs have dried (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:22).
|
| 140. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 332:2) is slightly more specific regarding this law, explaining that one may not treat an animal's scabs when they have already dried out and have begun to heal. When, however, the scabs are fresh and the wound still smarts, the scabs may be treated.
|
| 141. |
Literally, "was taken by blood."
|
| 142. |
Although a person is forbidden to perform any activity that is solely therapeutic in nature for the sake of a human being who is in discomfort, this restriction is not imposed regarding an animal's discomfort. The rationale is that a person generally is not disturbed about his animal's discomfort to the extent that he might be motivated to grind herbs for medication on the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 332:3; Mishnah Berurah 332:5).
It must, however, be emphasized that when an animal is very seriously afflicted, greater leniency is allowed. For example, one may have a gentile perform forbidden labors to save the animal. This is allowed because our Sages feared that when an animal's life was in danger, its owner would not hesitate to perform the forbidden labors himself to save the animal if he were not given any other alternative (ibid.).
|
| 143. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:39), which states that because this is a wasteful activity, it is forbidden during the week as well, unless one is suffering discomfort.
|
| 144. |
This is one of the instances where the commentaries have difficulty discovering the Rambam's source. There is no explicit statement to this effect in the Talmud, and the Rabbis have offered several possible references from which it is possible that this concept could have been derived.
|
| 145. |
Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:40) permits placing hot cups to cure a stomach ailment.
|
| 146. |
The latter practice involves tying a newborn baby's limbs with cloth so that they grow straight. This practice is still followed in several Yemenite communities.
|
| 147. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
|
| 148. |
To relate the Rambam's decision to terms of our contemporary experience: Medication may not be given on the Sabbath. Physiotherapy, by contrast, is permitted.
|
| 149. |
See Chapter 8, Halachot 11 and 16.
|
| 150. |
I.e., exposing the straw to the wind so that the chaff will be blown away.
|
| 151. |
Rashi explains that this act is permitted, because although it is possible that a forbidden labor, sifting, might be performed, it is done unintentionally. Hence, there is no prohibition involved. Kinat Eliyahu adds that here we are speaking about an activity that resembles sifting and which is forbidden by the Rabbis for that reason, but not about the forbidden labor of sifting itself. Therefore, forbidding carrying the straw in a sieve because some might unintentionally be sifted would be "a safeguard for a Rabbinic decree." Hence, there is no prohibition.
|
| 152. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 16.
|
| 153. |
According to the Rambam, mixing roasted flour with water is forbidden by the Rabbis, but does not violate the Torah's prohibition against making a mixture of solid particles and water. The Torah's prohibition involves adding water to a collection of granular substances - e.g., flour or cement - and mixing them until they cling together as a single mass.
Other authorities [Tosafot (Shabbat 18a), the Ra'avad (see Chapter 18, Halachah 15), the Ramban, and the Rashba] differ and maintain that according to the Torah, one is liable for mixing any substance with water, even if its particles do not stick together. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav321:16 and Be'ur Halachah 321.)
|
| 154. |
Mixing even small amounts of unroasted flour, by contrast, is forbidden (Mishnah Berurah321:53).
|
| 155. |
Rashi (Shabbat 155b) does not differentiate between shatit and roasted flour.
|
| 156. |
I.e., free-flowing as opposed to viscous.
|
| 157. |
During the week, by contrast, the vinegar is usually put in first (Shabbat 156a).
|
| 158. |
When bran is mixed into water, the particles remain separate and do not stick together, as mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 159. |
I.e., substances whose particles do adhere to each other when mixed with water.
|
| 160. |
But not in circular movement, lest it appear that one is kneading (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim324:3).
This ruling relates to another difference of opinion among the Sages which was not resolved and was, therefore, perpetuated by the later Rabbis. Rabbi Yosse bar Yehudah (Shabbat 155b) mentions that kneading involves actually mixing the dough with one's hands. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that one is liable for kneading as soon as one pours water into flour.
The Rambam follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosse bar Yehudah. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's opinion is, however, accepted by some authorities (Sefer HaTerumot), is referred to in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 321:16), and is preferred by the Ramah. According to this view, we may not stir a mixture of bran and water on the Sabbath unless the water was added before the commencement of the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 161. |
I.e., one is allowed to mix as large a quantity as one needs for that Sabbath. One may not, however, mix bran that one does not need on that Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah 324:9).
|
| 162. |
Note the Levush (Orach Chayim 324), which offers a different reason for this prohibition: It represents an expenditure of effort that is not necessary to provide the animal with food for the Sabbath.
|
| 163. |
Before a camel-driver set out on a journey with his beast, he would force-feed it enough food to last several days, to minimize the amount of fodder he would have to carry (Meiri).
|
| 164. |
This refers to calves that are force-fed to fatten them for slaughter.
|
| 165. |
See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.
|
| 166. |
The Mishnah Berurah 324:28 emphasizes that even if one is allowed to force feed-animals, one must do so without moving the animal, for an animal is muktzeh.
|
| 167. |
This issue has import within the context of the socio-economic history of the Jewish people. In Eastern Europe, one of the main sources of income for the Jewish people was raising fattened geese. These geese were force-fed during the week to the extent that they were unable to consume enough food to satiate themselves on the Sabbath unless they were force-fed. Some Rabbis allowed force-feeding them on the Sabbath, while others forbade it. (See Mishnah Berurah 324:27.) There are authorities who forbade the practice entirely, because of cruelty to animals, and because of the problems in kashrut that might arise.
|
| 168. |
Note the Be'ur Halachah 324, which draws attention to the following question: Is one Jew allowed to feed animals that another Jew is responsible to feed? Seemingly, since their owner is allowed to feed them, that same license is granted to other Jews. The Be'ur Halachah favors granting this leniency.
|
| 169. |
Even if the pigs belong to a Jew, he is forbidden to feed them on the Sabbath. This decree was imposed because the Rabbis prohibited raising pigs (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 409). Therefore, if one possesses pigs in a manner that does not violate this prohibition - e.g., a gentile pays one a debt with a pig - one may feed them on the Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah 324:30).
|
| 170. |
In this instance, even though a person owns these animals, since they usually are left to find their own food, providing them with food is considered to be an unnecessary expenditure of effort (Shulchan Aruch Harav 324:7; Mishnah Berurah 324:29).
|
| 171. |
Rav David Arameah explains that this is a decree imposed lest one pick up the food that has been set aside and feed it to the animal.
|
Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Two
Halacha 1
Although removing a loaf [of bread from the side of an oven] does not involve a [forbidden] labor, our Sages forbade doing so, lest one be prompted to bake.1
If one stuck a loaf to [the side of] an oven before the commencement of the Sabbath, and afterwards the Sabbath began, one may remove enough for three meals. Similarly, one may tell others, "Come and take for yourselves."2Although removing a loaf does not involve a [forbidden] labor, in this situation, when one removes a loaf, one should not do so with a baker's peel, but rather with a knife, in order to deviate from one's ordinary procedure.
Halacha 2
Why did the Sages forbid entering a bathhouse on the Sabbath?3 Because the attendants would heat up water on the Sabbath, and say that it has been heated before the commencement of the Sabbath. For this reason, our Sages decreed that one should not enter a bathhouse4 on the Sabbath, even to use [merely] as a steam bath.5
Similarly, they decreed that a person should not rinse his entire body with hot water6 - even if the water was heated on Friday. One may, however, wash one's face, hands, and feet7 [with hot water that was heated before the commencement of the Sabbath]. When do the above [restrictions] apply? To water that is heated by fire. One may, however, rinse one's entire body in the hot springs of Tiberias and the like.8
It is forbidden to bathe in hot springs located in caves, for the cave is filled with hot air, and one will sweat [as in a steam bath].9 Thus, it resembles a bathhouse.
Halacha 3
A person may warm himself before a fire and then go out and rinse his entire body in cold water. He may not, however, rinse his entire body in cold water10and then warm himself by a fire. By doing so, the water on his body will become lukewarm, and it would be as if he washed his entire body in warm water.11
Halacha 4
A person may bring a cask of water and place it in front of a fire, not in order that it will be warmed, but to dispel its chill. Similarly, one may place a flask of oil in front of a fire so that it will become lukewarm, but not so that it will be heated.14
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
After hot water was removed from a cooking urn, it is permitted to pour in cold water so that it will become lukewarm.21 It is permitted to pour hot water22 into cold water or cold water into hot water,23 provided [the hot water] is not in a vessel that was cooked on a fire,24 since this will raise the temperature [of the cold water] greatly.
Similarly, when a pot is boiling, one should not place spices in it, even after one has removed it from the fire.25 One may, however, salt it, since salt cooks only on a very large flame.26 If one poured the food from a pot to a bowl, one may place spices on it, even if it is boiling, since a vessel into which food has been poured does not [possess sufficient heat to] cook.27
Halacha 7
[On the Sabbath,] we may not place chiltit28 in hot water nor in cold water to soak.29 One may, however, soak it in vinegar. If one drank chiltit on Thursday and on Friday, one may soak it in cold water on the Sabbath, place it in the sun to warm, and drink it, lest ceasing to drink it cause one to become sick.30
Halacha 8
When food has been cooked before the Sabbath or soaked in hot water before the Sabbath, one is permitted to soak it in hot water on the Sabbath even though it is presently cold.31
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
A person may mix water, salt and oil, and dip his bread in the mixture or pour it onto cooked food. This is permitted provided one makes only a small amount.40 Making a large amount is forbidden,41 for it appears that one is performing one of the labors associated with cooking. Similarly, one may not make strong salt water42 - i.e., two thirds salt and one third water - for it would appear as if one is making fish-brine.43
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When mustard has been mixed on Friday, one may blend49 it [on the Sabbath] by hand or with a utensil50 and add honey to it. One may not stir it forcefully,51however; [all that is permitted is to] mix it.
Oil, vinegar, and spices may be added [on the Sabbath] to cress52that was stirred on Friday. One may not stir the mixture] forcefully, however; [all that is permitted is to] mix in [these ingredients]. Garlic that was crushed on Friday may be placed into groats on the Sabbath. One may not grind [the mixture]; [all that is permitted is to] mix in [the garlic].
Halacha 13
A person who removes hair from a person's body is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] shearing.53 Therefore, it is forbidden to wash one's hands with a substance that will without doubt remove hair - e.g.,ohaloh54 and the like.55
One may cleanse one's hands with frankincense powder, pepper powder, jasmine powder, and the like, without concern that one might remove the hair on one's hands, for this is not one's intent.56
[The following rules apply when] one mixes a substance that will undoubtedly remove hair together with a substance that will not necessarily remove hair: If the majority [of the mixture] is composed of a substance that will undoubtedly remove hair, it is forbidden to clean one's hands with it.57 If not, it is permitted.
Halacha 14
One may not look at oneself in a mirror of [polished] metal on the Sabbath. [This is] a decree [enacted] lest one use it to remove loose hanging strands of hair.58 This applies even if the mirror is affixed to the wall.59 One may, by contrast, look at oneself in a mirror that is not made of metal, even if it is not affixed [to a wall].60
Halacha 15
A person who launders is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] whitening, and one who wrings out a garment is liable because he is [performing one of the activities involved in] laundering.61 Therefore, it is forbidden to press a piece of cloth, unprocessed fabric, or the like into the opening of a flask to plug it, lest one squeeze62 liquids from it.63
Halacha 16
When a cask [of liquids] breaks67 on the Sabbath, one may save what one needs for oneself and one's guests on the Sabbath,68 provided one does not sponge up wine with a sponge69 or scoop up oil with his hands.70 [These restrictions were instituted, because] were one allowed to follow one's ordinary weekday practice, there is the possibility that one would squeeze [the liquids from it].
How must he save [the liquid]? He should bring a container and place it under [the liquid].71 He may not bring one container to catch [the liquid] in the air, and another into which to collect [the liquid]. This [restriction] is a decree, lest one carry a container through the public domain.
[An exception is made] if guests unexpectedly arrive. [In this instance,] he may bring one container to catch [the liquid] in the air, another into which to collect [the liquid], and then combine it with the first. He should not collect [the liquid] and then invite guests. Instead, he should invite guests and then collect [the liquid]. If one acts with guile in this matter,72 it is permitted.73
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
A person whose hands have become soiled with mud may clean them with a horse's tail, a cow's tail, or a firm cloth used to hold thorns.85 [One may] not, [however, use a] cloth that is used to clean one's hands. [These restrictions were instituted] so that one will not follow one's weekday practice and come to launder the cloth.86
Halacha 20
A person who washes himself in water may dry himself with a towel and carry it by hand; we do not suspect that he might wring [water from it].87
Similarly, a person whose clothes become soaked with water88 may continue walking in them; we do not suspect that he might wring [water from them].89[When he removes them,] he may not, however, hang them out to dry even within his home, lest an observer suppose that he laundered his garment on the Sabbath and hung it out to dry.90 Whenever the Sages instituted a prohibition because of the impression it might create,91 the act is forbidden even in one's private chambers.92
Halacha 21
When two mikvaot are located one on top of the other, one may remove the plug between them and connect them. Afterwards, one may return the plug to its place. There is no concern that one might squeeze out water [in the process of doing so], since one's intent is that the water should flow out.93
One may plug a drain with clothes or with any article that can be carried so that water will not inundate food and utensils.94 We may not, however, plug a drain so that water will descend into a cistern.95 The plug is resting in water and the possibility exists that one may squeeze [water from the plug] when one presses it into place.96
Halacha 22
It is forbidden to fix the sleeves of garments, adjusting them to form layers of cuffs97 as is one's ordinary practice during the week after washing clothes.98
Similarly, we may not fold clothes on the Sabbath in the same way as we fold clothes during the week after laundering them. If one does not possess a change of clothes, one may fold a garment,99 stretch it out, and wear it so that one will [be dressed] attractively on the Sabbath.100 The above [restrictions] apply only to a new white garment that may become wrinkled and soiled immediately.101
Only one person may fold [a garment]; folding it by two people [together] is forbidden.102
Halacha 23
Halacha 24
Tearing is one of the categories of [forbidden] labor.108Accordingly, a person whose garments catch onto thorns should separate them carefully109 and patiently, so that they do not tear. If they tear, he is not liable, for this is not his intent.110
It is permitted to wear new clothes; if they tear, it is of no consequence. We may crack open a nut in a piece of cloth without concern that [the cloth] might tear.
Halacha 25
A person who attaches [building materials to each other] is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building.111 Therefore, all doors that are attached to the ground should not be removed, nor should they be returned to their place, lest one attach them.112
The doors of a cabinet, chest, or closet, or the doors of other utensils may be removed, but they may not be returned to their place.113 If their bottom hinge slips [partially out of place], it may be pushed back into place.114 In the Temple, it may be returned to its place.115 If, however, the upper hinge slips [out of place], it is forbidden to return it. [This is] a decree [applying] in all places,116 [enacted] lest one attach it.117
Halacha 26
One may not braid one's hair, or set one's hair around one's forehead,118 for this would appear to resemble building.
A candelabrum made up of separate pieces may not be reassembled on the Sabbath, nor may a chair or a table made up of pieces be reconstructed,119for this resembles building.120 If, however, one does reassemble these objects, one is not liable,121 since [the forbidden labors] of building and demolishing do not apply regarding utensils.122 If [the parts of such a utensil] remain loosely put together, one may [complete] its assembly.123
We may not adjust the vertebra in a child's backbone [so that they are aligned] one above the other,124 since this resembles building.
Halacha 27
A person who erects a permanent tent is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building.125 Accordingly, at the outset, it is forbidden to erect or demolish a temporary126 tent, lest one erect or demolish a permanent tent. If, however, one erects or demolishes a temporary tent, he is not liable.
One may add to a temporary tent on the Sabbath. What is implied? If a cloth was spread over pillars or over walls and was rolled up before the Sabbath, [the following rule applies]: If there was a portion the size of a handbreadth extended before the Sabbath,127 one may extend it until its full width on the Sabbath, causing it to become a large tent. The same applies in other similar situations.
Halacha 28
Halacha 29
Halacha 30
[The following rules apply to a bed over which is hung] a bridal canopy whose roof is not a handbreadth wide, nor is the span three handbreadths below its roof a handbreadth wide:138 Since it was prepared to serve this purpose [before the commencement of the Sabbath], it may be spread out and rolled up [on the Sabbath].139 [This leniency is granted,] provided it does not hang more than a handbreadth above the bed.140
Halacha 31
It is permitted to wear a hat with a brim that provides shade for the person wearing143 it.144 If, however, one extends the clothes one is wearing above one's head or in front of one's face like a tent and: a) [the clothes] are tightly fitted around one's head, and b) the brim that one extends is very firm like a roof,145 this is forbidden, because one is making a temporary tent.
Halacha 32
A person who hangs a curtain or the like should take care not to create a tent while he is doing so.146 Therefore, a large curtain should be hung by two individuals and is forbidden to be hung by a single person.
[Moreover,] a canopy with a roof147 may not be extended even if ten people help in doing so. For it is impossible that it will not be lifted up slightly above the ground [in the process] and thus form a temporary tent.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 18, and Chapter 5, Halachah 19, where this subject is discussed at length. As the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:5) states, if one places the loaf of bread into the oven in time for it to form a crust, there is no prohibition against removing it on the Sabbath. When, however, there was not enough time for a crust to form, one must follow the instructions mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 2. |
Note the parallel in Chapter 23, Halachah 24.
|
| 3. |
I.e., according to the Torah, there is no prohibition against bathing.
|
| 4. |
Even one without attendants (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:1).
|
| 5. |
As Shabbat 40a relates, a series of Rabbinic decrees were passed regarding bathhouses. When the Sages saw that the bath attendants would heat up water on the Sabbath, they forbade bathing, but allowed the people to enter a bathhouse to use as a steam bath. Afterwards, they saw that because of this leniency their original prohibition was not being observed, and they forbade entering a bathhouse altogether.
The Rambam permits bathing in cold water, and this ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 326:1). Nevertheless, most of the later Ashkenazic halachic authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:6; Mishnah Berurah 326:21) state that it is customary not to bathe on the Sabbath at all, even in cold water. As is mentioned in Chapter 23, Halachah 8, an exception to the above rules is made regarding immersion in the mikveh.
|
| 6. |
I.e., even when one does not enter a bath.
|
| 7. |
Or other select portions of the body. A woman may wash her vaginal area in preparation for ahefsek taharah.
|
| 8. |
Similarly, leniency is granted regarding open bodies of water that have been heated by the sun, as stated in Halachah 9.
|
| 9. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:2 and the Mishnah Berurah 326:11, which favor opinions that do not accept this restriction.
|
| 10. |
See the following halachah and notes, which deal with the question whether this restriction applies after rinsing, not only one's entire body, but even a single limb.
|
| 11. |
The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that in this instance, it is not heating the water in itself that is forbidden, since one is heating it to a minimal temperature. (See the following halachah.) Rather, the problem stems from the resemblance to bathing in warm water.
|
| 12. |
I.e., a duct or pipe containing cold water passes through a body of hot water and thus becomes warm. Even if one does not take the water from the duct itself, but has the duct flow into a pool, the water is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:3). Shabbat 3:3 relates that the inhabitants of Tiberias actually had such a heating system constructed, but the Sages forbade its use.
|
| 13. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions that even if the pipe was brought into the hot water on Friday, the water may not be used on the Sabbath.
|
| 14. |
The Rambam's intent is that the water or the oil may be heated to the point that it becomes hot enough to burn a infant's belly.
This decision is questioned by the Rabbis. Rashi and the Rambam interpret the Talmudic passage (Shabbat 40b) that serves as the source for this halachah as meaning that one may not allow the temperature of the liquid to reach the point where it could burn an infant's belly. The Rashba, Tosafot and others, however, follow a more stringent ruling and forbid placing a liquid in a place where the potential exists for it to become hot enough to burn a infant's belly, even if one removes it before that time. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:14) accepts the latter view.
|
| 15. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 326:5) mentions opinions that differ and maintain that the restriction mentioned in the previous halachah applies not only after rinsing one's entire body, but after washing a single limb. For example, a person who washes his hands should not warm them by a fire. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:4 counsels following this stringency.
|
| 16. |
This is the halachic definition of the term יד סולדת בו. In contemporary measure, this is defined as 42 to 45 degrees centigrade by contemporary authorities.
|
| 17. |
With this statement, the Rambam emphasizes that the tub is very hot and contains a large amount of water. Therefore, even though it is a כלי שני - i.e., not a vessel that was itself heated on a fire, but a vessel into which hot water was poured - there are still restrictions, as the Rambam explains. Implied is that even though we generally follow the rule that the heat of a כלי שני is not sufficient to cook something placed within, a tub in a bathhouse is an exception.
The above represents the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. In the Kessef Mishneh, by contrast, Rav Yosef Karo explains that the tub we are speaking about is a כלי ראשון, a vessel in which water was heated. Were it to be a כלי שני, there would be no restrictions. His ruling in theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:11), appears to reflect this same view. The Ramah differs and clarifies in his gloss that the tub here is a כלי שני, adopting the explanation of the Maggid Mishneh.
|
| 18. |
The Ramah 318:12 states that if the amount of cold water the person adds at one time is so great that the it will not become hot, there is no prohibition against adding it, even to a כלי ראשון.
|
| 19. |
Shabbat 40b mentions that oil that is placed in a כלי שני does not cook. The Kessef Mishneh thus uses this as a support for his thesis that the Rambam is speaking about a tub that is a כלי ראשון. Others explain that, as stated above, even though in most instances we follow the rule that the heat of a כלי שני is not sufficient to cook something placed within, a tub in a bathhouse is an exception.
See also Hilchot Ma'aser 3:15, where it appears that the Rambam maintains that if a כלי שני is hot enough to burn a person's hand, oil that is placed inside will be cooked. The Radbaz, however, explains that the laws applying to cooking on the Sabbath are different from those applying to cooking regarding ma'aser.
|
| 20. |
Even according to the opinions that the Rambam is referring to a כלי ראשון, this is permitted. Although there are restrictions against pouring water from a כלי ראשון onto spices and the like, these restrictions do not apply when water is poured into other water. The rationale is that the waters mix and there is no time when the heat of the water from the כלי ראשון will be concentrated in a single space (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:20; Mishnah Berurah 318:78).
|
| 21. |
According to Rav Yosef Karo (in the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch 318:12), this refers to a heating urn that was emptied entirely of hot water. One might think that pouring cold water in it would be forbidden, since the possibility exists that by doing so one will refine the metal of the urn. (See Chapter 12, Halachah 2, and notes.) Nevertheless, since this is not one's intent (אינו מתכוין), nor is it absolutely certain that this will take place (i.e., it is not a פסיק רישא), this is permitted (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).
The Maggid Mishneh and the Ramah accept this law, but they explain that it is also possible to interpret the Rambam's words as referring to an urn that was partially emptied of the water that was cooked in it, and then cold water was added. Even though the urn is a כלי ראשון, as long as so much cold water is poured in that it cannot become hot enough to burn an infant's belly, there is no prohibition involved.
|
| 22. |
I.e., even hot water that is in a כלי ראשון.
|
| 23. |
Which is in a כלי שני.
|
| 24. |
The Mishnah Berurah 318:82 emphasizes that if there is a small quantity of cold water, the restriction against using water from a כלי ראשון applies in both instances. One may not pour a small amount of cold water into a large amount of hot water, nor may one pour a large amount of hot water into a small amount of cold water. This ruling is not, however, accepted by all authorities. As mentioned above, according to the Ramah, one may pour hot water into a large amount of cold water, and a large amount of cold water into hot water, even if the hot water is in a כלי ראשון.
|
| 25. |
This law applies to most other substances, for most substances will cook in a כלי ראשון even after it is removed from a fire.
|
| 26. |
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter among the Rabbis. The Tur (Orach Chayim 318) and Tosafot (Shabbat 40b) differ and maintain that salt requires only a minimal amount of cooking and should not even be placed in a כלי שני. The later authorities emphasize that this depends on the type of salt used. In many communities, it is common to follow the more stringent ruling.
|
| 27. |
It must be emphasized that our Sages mention that there are certain substances that do not require much cooking and can be cooked even in a כלי שני. For that reason, some authorities maintain that we should be stringent and not place any uncooked articles in a כלי שני, for we are unsure of which substances are included in the category of foods that do not require much cooking. See Ramah, Orach Chayim 318:5.
|
| 28. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 22.
|
| 29. |
From the Rambam's placement of this halachah in this chapter, it would appear that he sees this as falling into the category of prohibitions instituted as a safeguard against cooking on the Sabbath, and not as one of the prohibitions instituted because it is forbidden to prepare remedies on the Sabbath.
|
| 30. |
Since soaking chiltit in cold water is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic prohibition, this prohibition is overridden because of the possibility of the person's becoming ill.
|
| 31. |
This law touches on the principle, אין בישול אחר בישול, "One is not liable for cooking something that is already cooked." Although this principle is accepted by all authorities, the scope of its application varies. To focus on the approach of the Rambam and to compare it to the perspective of other authorities, it is worthy to focus on each point in particular:
When food has been cooked before the Sabbath - According to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:4), this refers only to food that has been thoroughly cooked.
or soaked in hot water before the Sabbath - In contrast to the Rambam's decision, theMishnah Berurah 318:31 rules that food that was soaked in hot water before the Sabbath may be placed in hot water in a כלי שני, but should not be placed in hot water in a כלי ראשון.
one is permitted to soak it in hot water - This refers to water in a כלי ראשון that was removed from its cooking surface. It is forbidden to place any food in a pot on a cooking surface after the Sabbath has commenced (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:9; Mishnah Berurah 318:33).
on the Sabbath even though it is presently cold. - The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that this leniency applies only to cooked food that is dry. If the food is liquid, placing it in a כלי ראשון that is hot is considered to be cooking. From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:2), it would appear that he also accepts this limitation. The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 318), however, maintains that the Rambam does not hold one liable, even when one reheats foods that are not dry.
|
| 32. |
From the Rambam's wording, it is unclear if this refers to water that was in a כלי ראשון or in a כלי שני. From his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 3:4), it would appear that he maintains that it is permitted to pour water from a כלי ראשון directly on foods.
According to the Ashkenazic authorities, we are permitted to pour hot water on uncooked foods only from a כלי שני (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:11; Mishnah Berurah 318:35). Hot water from a כלי ראשון will cook the surface of the food onto which it is poured.
|
| 33. |
This clause comes to eliminate foods like aged salted fish or sole, whose preparation is completed by washing them with hot water. As the Rambam writes in Chapter 9, Halachah 2, one is liable for violating the forbidden labor of cooking merely by rinsing these foods with hot water.
|
| 34. |
The prohibition applies only to soaking the food in hot water. One may soak it in cold water (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:11; Mishnah Berurah 318:37).
|
| 35. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 3. This prohibition was instituted lest one err and think that just as it is permitted to cook using articles heated by the sun, it is permitted to cook using articles heated by fire.
|
| 36. |
I.e., the leniency of placing water in the sun will not cause one to think that it is permitted to place food on a fire.
|
| 37. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this law is mentioned because one might think that placing the water in the sun is forbidden, lest one place food in hot ashes.
On this basis, many authorities allow the use of water that has been heated by solar energy units on the Sabbath. Even the more stringent opinions, which object to such use, have no difficulty with the concept of using water heated by the sun. They base their objections on other rationales, among them:
That water heated by the solar energy units is heated by an object heated by the sun and not by the sun itself.
The water in the urn of the solar energy unit is very hot. When cold water enters that unit, it will be heated by the water and produce a situation resembling that of the tub mentioned in Halachah 5.
|
| 38. |
The bracketed additions are taken from Rashi's commentary (Shabbat 146b).
|
| 39. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that were the food left in the sun, it might spoil. By placing it in the cistern, one preserves it.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit., based on Shabbat 146b), the Rambam emphasizes that this law is mentioned because one might think that placing the food in the cistern is forbidden lest one smooth out the cistern's floor.
|
| 40. |
Enough for one meal (Ba'er Heteiv 321:4).
|
| 41. |
Significantly, Rashi (Shabbat 108b) explains that the rationale for all the laws in this halachah is that salting or pickling foods is comparable to processing leather. This rationale is mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 321:2). The Rambam, however, maintains that the forbidden labor of processing does not apply with regard to food (Chapter 11, Halachah 5).
|
| 42. |
In the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), Rav Yosef Karo states that it is forbidden to make even a small amount of such a mixture.
|
| 43. |
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo explains that usually fish-brine is preserved. Hence, it would appear that one is pickling food.
|
| 44. |
Included in the latter category are any vegetables that salt softens or makes less bitter. This includes onions, cucumbers, and most vegetables used for salads (Magen Avraham 321:7).
|
| 45. |
The Rambam's intent is not that pickling is forbidden as a derivative of cooking, but that there is a Rabbinic prohibition against doing so (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 321:3; Mishnah Berurah 321:16). Note, however, Karti Ufalti 105:2, which maintains that the Rambam considers that there is a Torah prohibition involved.
|
| 46. |
Similarly, a mixture of salt, vinegar, and oil (or other substances used for salad dressings) may be placed on these vegetables, because it no longer appears that one is salting the vegetables to pickle them (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 321:4; Mishnah Berurah 321:14).
|
| 47. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah 321:69, which permits making this mixture only when one does not undertake much effort in doing so.
|
| 48. |
Hence, this mixture, like any other remedy, may not be drunk on the Sabbath even if it was prepared before the Sabbath.
|
| 49. |
The Rambam appears to be saying that one may stir the mixture. The Mishnah Berurah 321:58, however, quotes this law as meaning that one may add water or wine to the mixture. Although the Rambam would probably accept that ruling as well, based on his conception of the Rabbinic prohibitions against kneading (see Chapter 21, Halachot 33-34 and notes), this is not likely his intent here.
|
| 50. |
The Hebrew word כלי can be rendered as either "utensil" or "container." On this basis, theKessef Mishneh mentions the interpretation of Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 53), which explains that one may shake a container to blend the mixture, but one may not stir it by hand. He does not, however, accept this as reflecting the Rambam's intent.
|
| 51. |
I.e., whip it forcefully by hand to produce a smooth, evenly flowing mixture.
|
| 52. |
A leafy vegetable that is used as a spice or dip when mixed with the abovementioned substances.
|
| 53. |
As explained in Chapter 9, Halachot 8-9.
|
| 54. |
A fragrant spice, noted for its cleansing powers.
|
| 55. |
This follows the principle of פסיק רישא stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6 - i.e., since one's act will surely result in the performance of a prohibited act, it is considered as if this is one's intent. Although a Rabbinic prohibition is involved here, the same principle still holds.
|
| 56. |
This decision is based on the principle of אינו מתכוין, that an act that results in the performance of a forbidden labor is permitted if it is not a certainty that the forbidden labor will indeed come about. Indeed, the Rambam uses this law to exemplify this principle in Chapter 1, Halachah 5.
|
| 57. |
This is the version in the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah. The Maggid Mishnehnotes that there is another version of the text which reverses the order in this clause, stating, "If the majority was a substance that will not necessarily remove hair, it is permitted." There is a difference in the rulings resulting from these two versions of the text when the amount of both substances is equal. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 326:9) follows the version of the standard text.
Sefer HaKovetz questions why such a leniency is allowed, and explains that all prohibitions based on the principle of פסיק רישא are merely Rabbinic in origin. Accordingly, since the substances that undoubtedly remove hair are not in the majority, leniency is granted. (It must be noted that it is difficult to reconcile the statements of Sefer HaKovetz with the Rambam's own statements, Chapter 1, Halachah 6, that one is liable for performing such an act.)
|
| 58. |
I.e., as Shabbat 149b emphasizes, the difficulty is because a metal mirror can serve as a cutting article itself.
|
| 59. |
The Sages desired that their decrees be applied uniformly.
|
| 60. |
This includes a glass mirror, as is used today (Maggid Mishneh; Mishnah Berurah 302:63).
|
| 61. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 11.
|
| 62. |
Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil questions the Rambam's ruling, since one's intent is not to wring out the liquid, but to plug the flask. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 320:22 states that when one plugs the opening firmly, one will certainly squeeze water from it. Hence, this is considered a פסיק רישא. Furthermore, our Sages forbade plugging the opening loosely, lest one plug it firmly.
|
| 63. |
The Kessef Mishneh (in the gloss on Chapter 9, Halachah 11) uses this law to refute the Maggid Mishneh's thesis that, according to the Rambam, the prohibition against wringing out liquids applies only to water, since it is generally beverages other than water that are contained in a flask.
|
| 64. |
As evident from his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 21:3), the Rambam explains that if the sponge does not have a handle, it is a פסיק רישא that one will squeeze water from it when cleaning with it. If it has a handle, that is not a certainty. This interpretation is also reflected in Rashi's commentary, Shabbat 143a.
Although the Ra'avad accepts the law, he objects to this explanation, maintaining that whether or not the sponge has a handle, one will squeeze water out when cleaning with it. Why then is one allowed to use it? Once the handle is attached, it is no longer considered to be a piece of fabric, but rather a container that is made to hold water. By using it, one is not squeezing the water directly, but merely causing it to be squeezed.
|
| 65. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 320:21, which states that this decree applies only to a jug of water, but not to one containing other beverages. See, however, the Kessef Mishneh's statements cited in note 63.
|
| 66. |
I.e., unless the cloth was designated for this purpose, it is possible that if it gets wet, one will wring out the water so that one can use it for another purpose. If, however, one has set aside the cloth for this use, one will not be concerned with its getting wet.
|
| 67. |
Based on the ruling of Tosafot (Shabbat 143b), the Ramah (Orach Chayim 335:1) emphasizes that this law applies only when the cask breaks. If it has a slow leak, there are no restrictions. Since there is no possibility of the person's losing the entire contents of the cask at once, our Sages did not fear that he would panic and violate the Sabbath laws to save his property.
The Ramah also mentions the ruling of Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 196) that these restrictions apply only when one desires to bring containers from one courtyard to another. There are, however, no restrictions on using different containers within one's own property. This leniency is accepted by the later Ashkenazic authorities.
|
| 68. |
According to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 335:1), one may save enough for one's Sabbath needs and the needs of one's guests, even if it is necessary to use several containers. As Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes in his gloss, the Rambam's wording does not appear to fit this interpretation.
|
| 69. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that this restriction applies even when a sponge has a handle. (See the previous halachah.) Since the person is distressed about the loss of his property, our Sages fear that he might violate the Sabbath laws in this instance.
|
| 70. |
I.e., there are two restrictions: that one may save only a limited amount of wine or oil, and that the manner in which one saves these liquids must differ from one's ordinary practice.
|
| 71. |
According to the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), there is no restriction on the size of this container. Any container may be used, regardless of the amount it can hold. As mentioned, the Rambam's wording does not appear to fit this interpretation.
|
| 72. |
I.e., invite guests who he knows will not want to partake of the liquids. In this way, he will be able to save the liquids because of them, even though they will not partake of them. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:17, where the Rambam mentions a similar instance where the Sages permitted one to act with guile.)
|
| 73. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) states that it is forbidden to invite guests with this intent. If, however, one does so, it is permitted to use the wine. It is possible that this is the Rambam's intent. (The Shulchan Aruch's leniency is actually even more encompassing, and allows one to use the wine if one invites the guests after collecting it.) Based on the Maggid Mishneh, theMagen Avraham 335:2, however, states that according to the Rambam, one is permitted to act with guile in this manner.
(Kinat Eliyahu objects to this interpretation, noting the difference in the Rambam's wording in this halachah, "If one acted with guile in this matter, it is permitted," and his wording in Chapter 23, Halachah 3, "It is permitted to act with guile in this matter.")
|
| 74. |
Since the person rubs it from the inside, it is not obvious that his intent is to launder the garment (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 302:7).
|
| 75. |
Even from the outside.
|
| 76. |
Or with a knife (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:17; Mishnah Berurah 302:34).
|
| 77. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the opinion of the Tur, which states that both rubbing the inside of a garment and scraping off mud are permitted only when the mud is moist. When the mud has dried, these acts are forbidden, because it is as if one is grinding the mud.
|
| 78. |
The Ramban and the Ra'avad follow a different version of the text of Shabbat 140a, and therefore rule that it is also permitted to rub a scarf. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit:5) follows the Rambam's decision, explaining that when rubbing a scarf, one's intent is to make it glistening clean.
The Be'ur Halachah cites support for the Rambam's ruling from Mo'ed Katan 10b, which states that it is permitted to rub clean one's garments on Chol HaMo'ed (see Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov8:14). This indicates that such an act is forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 79. |
I.e., a cloak becomes stiff after being laundered, and before putting it on one generally rubs it (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 80. |
Note Chapter 9, Halachah 11, where the Rambam states that one is not liable for wringing out leather. Similarly, the fact that he mentions the prohibition against laundering leather in this chapter appears to indicate that he considers it to be merely a Rabbinic prohibition. This perspective is also quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:19. The Be'ur Halachah 302, however, explains that one is liable for laundering leather.
|
| 81. |
The Rambam appears to allow one to scrape old shoes. The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishnehobject to this ruling, based on Shabbat 141a-b, which states that it is forbidden to scrape both new and old shoes.
The commentaries offer several resolutions of this difficulty. Some point to manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah that omit the word "new" entirely (Radbaz, Vol. V, Responsum 1628). Others explain that the Rambam mentions "new" shoes for specific reasons, but not to imply that scraping old shoes is permitted (Rabbenu Meir of Padua). Others find sources to substantiate the Rambam's ruling (Sefer HaKovetz).
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 302:8) forbids scraping both old and new shoes. Significantly, however, the prohibition is associated with the forbidden labor of removing hair. Note also the Magen Avraham 302:17 who emphasizes that the prohibition applies only when using a knife. Using dull metal is permitted.
|
| 82. |
See Chapter 23, Halachah 10, which appears to contradict this ruling. Similarly, the Ra'avad and others question the text here. Significantly, Rav Kapach mentions that the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah follow an alternate version of the text, which does not present a difficulty.
|
| 83. |
Care must be taken not to press the rag firmly, lest one squeeze out water from it (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:9).
|
| 84. |
One may not, however, rub them under water to remove the stain (Maggid Mishneh). Washing a cloth in water would be considered as laundering, even according to Torah law (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:20).
|
| 85. |
The Mishnah Berurah 302:57 states that one may also use a rag that is of no importance.
|
| 86. |
I.e., the prohibition was not instituted because of the act of washing one's hands with the cloth, but because one might wash the cloth later.
|
| 87. |
The Magen Avraham 301:58 focuses on this law as an example of the relation of the principles of Rabbinic authority to the changes in the cultural conditions under which Jews lived. Originally, this leniency was granted, because in the Talmudic era washing every day was considered a necessity, and a person who washes himself must dry himself. In his own time, washing was not considered as great a necessity. Hence, some thought of ruling that using a towel would be prohibited. Nevertheless, since the Sages of the Talmud did not institute a prohibition in this regard, the later Rabbis left the status quo unchanged. The Magen Avraham, however, concludes that it is preferable to dry oneself with a towel that one would not normally wring out during the week.
|
| 88. |
I.e., from rain, or because he fell into a body of water.
|
| 89. |
He must, however, be careful not to shake the water from them.
|
| 90. |
We are not, however, obligated to remove clothes that were hanging on a clothesline before the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 301:45).
|
| 91. |
The Mishnah Berurah 301:165 cites authorities who maintain that this applies only with respect to a safeguard instituted because of the possibility that an observer might think a prohibition from the Torah was violated. When the question revolves around a Rabbinic prohibition, there is room for leniency.
|
| 92. |
For the Sages wanted to established a uniform standard, applicable at all times.
|
| 93. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the person desires to connect the two mikvaot, he will not insert the plug firmly to the extent that he will squeeze water from it.
|
| 94. |
In this instance, the person's concern is to prevent the food and utensils from being inundated by the flow of water. Accordingly, his intent will be to plug the drain in a manner that will prevent a great flow. He, however, is not concerned that there will be a slight leak and will not necessarily plug the drain tightly (Kessef Mishneh).
Merkevet HaMishneh offers a different interpretation. The Rambam is referring to a plug for a hole in a cistern. The person sees that the drain pipes leading to the cistern are full and soon the water level will reach the hole. He therefore plugs the hole so that the water will not flow out and flood the courtyard. Although he plugs the hole tightly, since the water level has not yet reached this height, there is no possibility that he will squeeze out water in the process.
|
| 95. |
I.e., there is a drain-pipe that leads in two directions. By plugging one end, the water can be directed into a cistern.
|
| 96. |
Since in this instance, the person wants to direct the flow of the water and preserve all of it, he will plug the other end of the pipe tightly. When doing so, the possibility exists that he will squeeze water from the plug.
|
| 97. |
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Beitzah 23a.
|
| 98. |
See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 8:14, which states that this is forbidden on Chol HaMo'ed because it requires professional expertise.
|
| 99. |
This appears to refer to folding a garment with the intent of smoothing out wrinkles that already exist. Similarly, one may fold a garment after removing it, in order that it remain uncreased so it can be worn again on the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:8).
|
| 100. |
One may fold and refold a garment several times on the Sabbath (Shabbat 15:3). If, however, there is no need to wear a garment again on the Sabbath, one may not fold it so that it will remain uncreased for the following day. For this reason, it is forbidden to fold one's tallit on the Sabbath after the morning prayers (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:8; Mishnah Berurah 302:13).
|
| 101. |
Note Rashi (Shabbat 113a), who offers a different explanation of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 102. |
When two people fold a garment, the possibility exists that one will smooth out the creases by hand. This is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:9).
|
| 103. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 13.
|
| 104. |
Similarly, the application of other forms of makeup is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim303:25 and commentaries).
|
| 105. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 9.
|
| 106. |
Note Rashi (Shabbat 48a), who offers a different rationale for this restriction: that this resembles making a utensil.
|
| 107. |
The Mishnah Berurah 340:32 emphasizes that one may return them to the same pillow or blanket, but may not transfer them to another one on the Sabbath.
|
| 108. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 10.
|
| 109. |
Our translation has parallels in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, D'mai 6:6 andKilayim 9:5. The Merkevet HaMishneh, however, renders this word as "modestly" - i.e., so others will not see him and think that he is tearing.
|
| 110. |
As mentioned several times, a person is not liable for performing a forbidden labor without intention. In this instance, there is an even greater reason for leniency, since the concept of intent is particularly important regarding this category of forbidden labor. As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10, the forbidden labor of tearing consists of tearing for the sake of resewing.
|
| 111. |
See Chapter 10, Halachot 12-14.
|
| 112. |
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements here, noting that from the halachot cited above, it would appear that by returning the doors to their place one would be liable for performing the forbidden labor of building.
|
| 113. |
According to the Ramah (Orach Chayim 314:1), this law applies only to small cabinents and chests, those smaller than 40 seah, approximately .375 square meters in modern measure.
In a related matter, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:34-35 emphasizes that in contrast to the doors of a building, the doors of cabinets, chests, and the like are not considered muktzeh on the Sabbath. Since they were part of a utensil before they were removed, they are still considered to be utensils afterwards. In contrast, the doors of a building were not considered utensils before the commencement of the Sabbath. Hence, if they are removed on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry them.
|
| 114. |
If, however, it slips off entirely, it may not be returned outside the Temple (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 313:5).
|
| 115. |
Since the prohibitions in the category of sh'vut need not be observed in the Temple.
|
| 116. |
I.e., even in the Temple. This is an exception to the principle mentioned in the previous note, because, in this instance it is very likely that one will perform a forbidden labor (Tosafot, Eruvin102b).
|
| 117. |
There is a greater concern that one will attach the upper hinge firmly, because if it becomes detached the door will fall. If, by contrast, the upper hinge remains attached but the lower hinge slips off, the door will still remain hanging.
|
| 118. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 10:7). Rashi interprets this term to refer to "parting the hair." Note also the Mishnah Berurah 303:83, which discusses whether this restriction applies regarding only a woman's natural hair, or also regarding a wig.
|
| 119. |
See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:5), which - albeit in a different context - allows the use of folding chairs on the Sabbath. One may add a leaf to a table, but one may not construct a table by placing the table board on its legs.
|
| 120. |
Many other authorities differ and explain that the prohibition was instituted lest one firmly attach the parts to each other. Were one to do so, one would be liable for performing the forbidden labor of מכה בפטיש, completing a utensil (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 313:6).
|
| 121. |
It appears that, accordingly to the Rambam, even if a person were to attach the parts firmly to each other, he would not be liable. As mentioned, others differ.
|
| 122. |
The Rambam's perspective on this issue requires clarification: Beitzah 22a states, "There is no [concept of] building regarding utensils."
The Rambam explains that this refers only to putting together a utensil that is made up of several component parts. Fashioning a new utensil, by contrast, is surely considered building, as explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 13 and notes. As mentioned, others differ and maintain that a person who fashions a new utensil is liable for performing the forbidden labor of מכה בפטיש, completing a utensil.
|
| 123. |
According to the Rambam, the rationale for the leniency appears to be that since the parts hang loosely, one would not confuse assembling such a structure with erecting a building. According to the other authorities, the rationale is that since the parts of the utensil hang loosely, there is little likelihood that one will attach the parts firmly to each other.
|
| 124. |
This refers to adjusting the child's limbs by hand. As mentioned in Chapter 21, Halachah 31, one may tie clothes around the child to adjust his limbs. Furthermore, on the day of a child's birth, it is permitted to adjust his limbs (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:10; Mishnah Berurah 330:34). Even afterwards, many authorities allow the adjustment of other limbs, with the exception of the backbone.
|
| 125. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 13.
|
| 126. |
In this context, the word "temporary" is defined as "not constructed to remain for a prolonged period" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:1). It would appear that, according to the Rambam, even if a tent has a roof that is a handbreadth wide, its classification as permanent or temporary depends on the intent of the person who erects it. (See the Noda BiY'hudah, Vol. II, Orach Chayim, Responsum 30.)
Based on this restriction, the Noda BiY'hudah (loc. cit.) forbids opening an umbrella on the Sabbath. Similarly, because of the appearance that might be created, he forbids carrying an umbrella on the Sabbath even when: a) it was opened before the Sabbath, and b) the community possesses an eruv that makes it permitted to carry.
|
| 127. |
If, however, the overhang was not at all extended before the commencement of the Sabbath, it may not be extended on the Sabbath. Although it was suspended above the wall before the Sabbath, since it was completely rolled up, it may not be used.
|
| 128. |
Similarly, it is permitted to place a table-top on its legs (Maggid Mishneh). Note, however, theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:3), which forbids placing a table-top on legs that appear as walls.
|
| 129. |
I.e., a space is covered by a surface supported by four legs.
|
| 130. |
Since one does not use the space below them (Maggid Mishneh).
Note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:15, and the resolution offered by the Lechem Mishneh there.
|
| 131. |
I.e., the walls of the tent slant downward, and it does not have a straight roof that is a handbreadth wide.
|
| 132. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, the space within three handbreadths is considered to be a single entity. Thus, were it to be a handbreadth wide, the tent would be considered as having a roof of significant size (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:15).
|
| 133. |
This follows the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Chanan'el. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher, by contrast, maintain that since the tent does not have a roof that is a handbreadth wide, it can never be considered even a temporary tent, and there is no prohibition in constructing it. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:8) follows the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 134. |
I.e., there is a beam in the middle of a room on which a cloth is rolled that will be spread out to serve as a cover for a bed. Cords are attached to the cloth, and when they are pulled it is extended to form the canopy. Needless to say, such a canopy must meet the criteria mentioned in the first clause of this halachah regarding the width of its roof (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:16;Mishnah Berurah 315:37).
|
| 135. |
As implied by the first clause, had the cloth not been hanging before the commencement of the Sabbath, hanging it on the Sabbath itself would have been forbidden. Nevertheless, since it was hanging before the Sabbath and the cords that extend it are already in place, it is considered already to have been extended the length of a handbreadth. Therefore, extending it further is permitted, as mentioned in Halachah 27 (ibid.).
|
| 136. |
Since spreading out the cloth is not considered to be building a tent, closing it is not considered to be demolishing one (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:16; Mishnah Berurah 315:38). This and all the other leniencies associated with a temporary tent apply when the roof of the temporary tent is less than a handbreadth wide (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:17; Mishnah Berurah 315:38). This ruling is also reflected in the following halachah.
|
| 137. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 315:1), who states that one may hang a curtain on the Sabbath, even if one intends to leave it hanging permanently, provided there is no halachic significance to its being hung - e.g., to hang a curtain in front of a toilet so that one could pray in that same room.
Note also the Mishnah Berurah 315:38, which states that the wording of this halachah indicates that the cords from which a curtain hangs must be prepared before the commencement of the Sabbath, as the cords of the cloth mentioned immediately before. There are, however, other authorities who do not accept this view. (See also Halachah 32, which describes the manner in which a curtain may be hung.)
|
| 138. |
Thus, it meets the criteria of a temporary tent mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 139. |
This represents a greater leniency than the previous halachah. In that halachah, leniency was granted only because the ends of the canopy were hanging from the curtain rods and attached by strings. In this instance, the canopy was not hanging before the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since it was prepared to serve this purpose, it is permitted.
|
| 140. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites the interpretation of the Rashba, who explains that this refers to a canopy that hangs down a handbreadth below the bed. The part that hangs down is thus considered to be a wall - and the slanted portion of the canopy, a roof.
Based on this interpretation, he finds it necessary to differentiate between such a canopy and a sheet or blanket extended over a bed that is used at present. In the latter instance, even though the sheet or blanket extends more than a handbreadth on either side of the bed, it is not considered a tent, since it was not spread out with the purpose of enclosing space. The canopy, by contrast, was spread out for that purpose and hence is considered a tent in certain instances.
Although this interpretation is accepted by the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:18;Mishnah Berurah 315:42), Rav Kapach notes that it does not fit the wording used by the Rambam, "provided it does not hang more than a handbreadth above the bed." He thus explains that if the canopy hangs more than a handbreadth above the bed, that open space is considered a wall, and the canopy, its roof.
|
| 141. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:7). Others render this as "a shutter." It would, however, appear that the Rambam would not object to the use of a shutter for this purpose. Indeed, as indicated by Shabbat 24:5, it is permitted to use any utensil for this purpose. Compare also to Chapter 26, Halachah 10.
|
| 142. |
The rationale for this leniency is that this is considered equivalent to closing a window or a door which is permitted on the Sabbath (Shabbat 125b).
The same rules apply regarding an aperture in the roof (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 313:1; Mishnah Berurah 313:1).
|
| 143. |
In this instance, we have adopted the version of this halachah found in the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version of the standard published texts would be rendered "on one's garments."
|
| 144. |
The Maggid Mishneh and similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:40), interpret this as referring to a hat with a brim less than a handbreadth. According to their interpretation, putting on such a hat is forbidden even in one's home. The Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Orach Chayim, Responsum 30), however, explains that there is no prohibition against putting on a hat, regardless of how wide its brim is.
|
| 145. |
Note the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1450), who explains that both of these stipulations are derived from the Hebrew word מהודק used in Shabbat 138b, the source for this halachah. מהודק means "firm," and in this context, the use of the word implies both "firmly attached" and that the brim is firm. When both these stipulations are fulfilled, the garment resembles a tent.
Note Rashi, however, who explains that the head-covering must be firmly attached to one's head. Otherwise, one may not wear it in the public domain, lest the wind blow it from one's head. Rashi's interpretation is followed by most later commentaries and accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:41).
|
| 146. |
I.e., there is no prohibition against hanging the curtain if one holds it upright. This, however, is difficult when hanging a large curtain. Inevitably, one will hold one portion of the curtain with one's left hand and fold at least a handbreadth or more over with one's right hand while hanging it. Thus, a temporary tent will have been created.
This represents the Rambam's conception of the passage in Shabbat 138b, the source for this halachah. Although the Ra'avad and others interpret that passage differently, the Rambam's view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:12). (See also the final clause of Halachah 29 and notes.)
|
| 147. |
I.e., in contrast to the canopy described in Halachah 29.
|
| 148. |
Similarly, removing the cover is forbidden, since it is considered to be demolishing a tent (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:19).
|
| 149. |
The Maggid Mishneh mentions that this restriction applies only when there is a handbreadth or more of empty space in the jug. This qualification is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:13).
The Maggid Mishneh also mentions that the Rashba and the Ra'avad interpret Shabbat 139b, the source for this halachah, differently, and therefore reach a more lenient decision. Although their view is mentioned by the later authorities, the general consensus is to follow the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 150. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 17, and notes.
|
| 151. |
Rashi (Shabbat, loc. cit.) interprets the passage that serves as the source for this halachah as the Rambam does. Others, however, explain that this restriction was instituted to make one deviate from one's ordinary practice as a safeguard associated with the forbidden labor of sifting.
|
Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Three
Halacha 1
A person who makes a hole that can be used as an entrance and as an exit - e.g., a hole in a chicken coop that is used to allow light to enter and to allow foul air to leave - is liable [for performing the forbidden labor] of dealing [the final] hammer blow.1
Accordingly, [the Sages instituted] a decree [forbidding] the opening of any hole, even one intended to be used only as an outlet or only as an inlet, lest one open a hole for which one is liable.2 For this reason, it is forbidden to make a new hole in a cask or to widen an existing one.3 One may, however, open an existing hole [that has been plugged].4
Halacha 2
One may make a hole in the seal7 of a cask in order to pour out wine from it, provided one opens it from the top.8 It is, however, forbidden to open it from the side [of the seal],9 for this resembles making a utensil.
A person may break a barrel10 to eat dried figs contained in it, provided he does not intend to make a utensil.11 Similarly, a person may bring a cask of wine and slash its top off with a sword12 for his guests13 without any concern [about the above restrictions], for his intent is [not to make a utensil, but solely] to show his feelings of generosity.
Halacha 3
Just as it is forbidden to open any hole, so too, is it forbidden to close any hole.14 Therefore, it is forbidden to close a hole in a barrel, even when one employs an article that need not be spread,15 or one that will not lead to squeezing - 16 e.g., to plug it with a piece of wood or with a small stone.17
One may, however, store food [by placing it the opening of the barrel]. This is permitted even though, in the process, the barrel is stopped up. It is permitted to act with guile in this matter.18
Halacha 4
[Performing] any action that completes the fashioning [of an object] causes one to be liable for [the forbidden labor of] dealing the final blow. For this reason, a person who files [the smallest amount of an object] or who repairs an article in any way is liable.19
Accordingly, it is forbidden to sound musical tones on the Sabbath, whether using a musical instrument - e.g., a harp or a lyre - or using another object. It is even forbidden to tap with one's fingers on the ground or on a board,20 to snap one's fingers rhythmically21 as singers do,22 to shake a nut [like a rattle] for a child, or to ring a bell to quiet [a child]. All of these [restrictions were instituted as] a decree, lest one repair a musical instrument.
Halacha 5
We may not drum, nor dance, nor clap hands on the Sabbath.23 [These are] decrees, [instituted] lest one repair a musical instrument. One may, however, clap using the back of one's hands.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
One may draw water using a branch that is tied to the cup [used to draw water from the well]. If it is not tied to the cup, we may not draw water with it. [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest one trim [the branch] and adjust it.
It is forbidden to polish silverware withgreitikon,32 because this makes it shine as if it had been treated by a craftsman. Thus, it appears as if one is repairing a utensil and completing one's work on the Sabbath.33One may, however, polish it with sand34 andneter.35 Similarly, all [other] utensils may be polished with any substance.
It is forbidden to wash plates, cooking dishes, or the like, because it is as if one is improving them,36 unless one washes them for the sake of using them to eat another meal on this Sabbath.37 Utensils used for drinking, by contrast - e.g., glasses and pitchers - may be washed at any time, for there is no limit to [the number of times a person may desire to] drink.38
One may not make beds on the Sabbath in order to sleep on them on Saturday night.39 One may, however, make the beds [after sleeping on them] Friday night in order to use them again on the Sabbath.
Halacha 8
On the Sabbath, it is forbidden to immerse [in a mikveh] utensils that are ritually impure, because it resembles repairing the utensil.40 An impure person, by contrast, may immerse himself,41 because it appears [as if his intent] is to cool off. One may not sprinkle [ashes from the red heifer] on the Sabbath.42
A person who immerses utensils on the Sabbath without knowing of the prohibition involved may use them [on the Sabbath]. If [by contrast,] he violates the prohibition intentionally, he should not use them until Saturday night.
It is permitted to immerse impure water on the Sabbath. What should be done? The water should be placed in a container that is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity43 - e.g., a container made of stone44 - and the container should be immersed until it is submerged in the waters of themikveh and thus purified.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Processing leather is one of the categories of [forbidden] labor.47 A person who softens a hide with oil as the leather-workers do is liable for processing leather.48 Therefore, a person should not anoint his foot49 with oil while wearing a new shoe or sandal.50 He may, however, anoint his foot with oil and put on his shoes or sandals, even though they are new. Similarly, he may apply oil to his entire body and roll on a new bed cover51 without any concern.
When does the above apply? When only a small amount [of oil] is used, enough merely to polish the leather. If, however, he has a large quantity of oil on his skin that would soften the leather, this is forbidden, since this resembles processing it. All [the above restrictions] apply with regard only to new items. It is permitted to do so with old ones.52
Halacha 11
A person who spreads a plaster on the Sabbath is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] smoothing a hide.53 Therefore, it is forbidden to close a hole with wax and the like, lest one spread it.54 It is even forbidden to close a hole with fat. [This is] a decree, [enacted] lest [one use] wax.
Halacha 12
Writing is one of the categories of [forbidden] labor.55 Accordingly, it is forbidden to apply eye-paint with a brush and the like on the Sabbath, because this resembles writing.56
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
Court is not convened on the Sabbath, nor are [the rites of] chalitzah66 oryibbum67 conducted, nor are women betrothed,68 lest one write.69
[Property] may not be consecrated,70 nor may endowment evaluations be made,71 nor may [property] be set aside,72 because this resembles a sale.
Nor may terumah and the tithes be separated, for this resembles consecrating the produce one has separated, and also because, [through this ritual,] one makes [the produce] fit [for use] on the Sabbath.73
One may not tithe one's animals.74 [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest one mark [the animal] with red paint.75 A person may consecrate his Paschal sacrifice on the Sabbath76 and his festive offering on a holiday, for this is the mitzvah associated with that day.77
Just as property may not be consecrated, so too, water may not be consecrated for use [in sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer].78
Halacha 15
When a person separates terumot and tithes on the Sabbath or on a holiday without intentionally desiring to transgress the prohibition involved, he may partake of the produce that he made fit to eat. If he intentionally desired to violate the prohibition, [the produce] is forbidden until Saturday night.79 The separation is, nevertheless, effective.
Similarly, when a person consecrates [an object], makes an endowment evaluation, or sets property aside on the Sabbath, with or without the intention to violate the prohibition, the act he performs is effective. Needless to say, this applies on a holiday. Similarly, a business transaction that a person makes with a colleague on the Sabbath is effective.80
Halacha 16
A person who designates83 [a portion of produce] that is d'mai as terumat ma'aser,84 or [who designates a portion of produce as] the tithe for the poor85should not take these portions [and give them to the individuals entitled to receive them]86 on the Sabbath. [This restriction applies] despite the fact that the place [of these portions] is designated before the Sabbath and they are placed in a known location at the side of [the remainder of] the produce.
If, however, a priest or a poor person is accustomed to be hosted by this person, he may come and partake [of these designated portions,] provided the person informs87 the priest that he is feeding him from terumat ma'aser, or the poor person that he is feeding him from the tithe of the poor.
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
On the Sabbath a person is forbidden to calculate accounts that he requires, whether concerning matters of the past or matters of the future. [This is] a decree, [enacted] lest one write.
Therefore, calculations that are of no practical benefit may be performed on the Sabbath. What is implied? [A person may calculate] how many seah of grain he possessed in a particular year, how many dinarim his son's wedding cost, or the like. [Since] these are insignificant matters with no usefulness, there is no difference between making these calculations on the Sabbath or during the week.91
Halacha 19
It is forbidden to read mundane documents92 on the Sabbath, lest one conduct oneself in an ordinary manner and be provoked to make an erasure.93
A person may verbally count his guests and the desserts [he will serve them],94 but may not read a written list, lest he read a mundane document. Therefore, if the names were engraved into a tablet or into the wall, one is allowed to read them, for [such writing] will not be interchanged with a [written] document.
It is forbidden to read the writing under a figure or an image95on the Sabbath. It is even forbidden to read the Sacred Writings96 during the time the House of Study is in session, lest this lead to the neglect of the House of Study - i.e., so that no one should stay home and read the Sacred Writings and thus be held back from attending the House of Study.97
Halacha 20
[When] a fire breaks out in a courtyard on the Sabbath, a person may not save all [his possessions] in the courtyard98 [by transferring them] to another courtyard99 in the same lane, despite the fact [that carrying is permitted because] of an eruv. [This is a] decree, [instituted] lest a person extinguish the fire in order to save his property. [This is necessary because] a person panics when his property [is in danger of] being lost.100
For this reason, [our Sages] decreed that a person may save only the food he needs for that Sabbath,101 the utensils he needs to use on that Sabbath,102and the clothes that he can wear.103 Thus, he will despair of saving his property and he will not be motivated to extinguish the fire.
If there is no eruv, one may not even save one's food and one's utensils.104
Halacha 21
What food may a person save? If a fire breaks out on Friday night, one may save enough food for three meals.105 Foodstuffs that are fit for human consumption may be saved for humans, and fodder that is fit for animals may be saved for animals.
If the fire breaks out in the morning, one may save enough for two meals; in the afternoon, enough for one meal.
Halacha 22
When does the [restriction] on taking only the food for one's needs apply? When one uses many containers to save [the food] or one uses a single container, removes it, empties it, and fills it again. If, however, one removes a single container at one time, it is permitted to remove it even though it contains enough food for many meals.
Halacha 23
What is implied? One may save a basket filled with loaves of bread, even though it contains enough for several meals. [One also may save] a cake of dried figs and a cask of wine.106 Similarly, it is permitted to spread out a garment, collect all [the food]107 one can within it, and remove it at one time.
Halacha 24
One may tell others, "Come and save for yourselves."108 Every individual is allowed to save enough food for his needs or a single container that holds a large amount. [The food that] these individuals save belongs to them.109
If the person who saves it does not want to take it and returns it to its [original] owner,110 it is permitted for him to take payment for his efforts after [the conclusion of] the Sabbath.111 It is not considered a wage [paid for working on] the Sabbath,112since no [forbidden] labor was [performed], nor was a prohibition [transgressed], for one [merely] removed the food into a place [enclosed in the same] eruv.
Halacha 25
A person who saves a loaf of fine flour may not return and save a loaf of coarse flour. If, however, one saved a loaf of coarse flour, one may return and save a loaf of fine flour.113
When Yom Kippur falls on Friday,114 a person may save [food] on Yom Kippur that he needs for the Sabbath.115 One may not, however, save [food] on the Sabbath for Yom Kippur. Needless to say, one may not [save food on the Sabbath] for a holiday, nor may one save on one Sabbath for the following Sabbath.
Which garments may one save? One may put on all the clothes one can wear and wrap oneself in all the cloaks one can and remove them.116 [Similarly,] one may tell others, "Come and save for yourselves." Every individual [who desires] may put on all the clothes he can wear and wrap himself in all the cloaks he can and remove them. The clothes he saves belong to him, like the food [described above], for he is acquiring an ownerless object.117
Halacha 26
It is permitted to save118 all sacred writings119 that are found in one courtyard [by transferring them] to another courtyard in the same lane, even though aneruv was not made, provided the lane has three walls and a pole [in the place of the fourth wall].120
[The above leniencies apply] provided that the [sacred writings] are written in the Assyrian script121 and in Hebrew.122 If, by contrast, they are written in any other language or using any other script, we should not save them even if there is an eruv.123[Indeed,] even during the week, we are forbidden to read124from such texts. Rather, they should be left in an open place125 where they will become spoiled as a matter of course.
Halacha 27
Even if [these sacred texts] are written with other tints or with red ink,126 or even if the writing is not permanent, since they are written in the Assyrian script and in Hebrew, we should save them.
Halacha 28
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 16. Note, however, Halachah 14 of that chapter, which mentions making a hole in a chicken coop in connection with the forbidden labor of building.
|
| 2. |
Accordingly, many authorities forbid opening cans or bags on the Sabbath. The more lenient opinions, which allow this, base themselves on the concept that after the contents are removed from the can or bag, it is no longer considered a useful article. Alternatively, these opinions maintain that the can is considered to be a utensil even before it is opened, and the cover is not at all significant.
|
| 3. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 314:1) states that this restriction applies only when the person has the intent to widen the hole. If he does not have this intent, there is no prohibition. As an example, that text mentions a knife inserted into a barrel, even though the hole may be widened when the knife is removed; since that is not one's intent, there is no prohibition involved. The Ramah emphasizes, however, that this leniency applies only when it is not a certainty (פסיק רישא) that the hole will be opened further.
|
| 4. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) quotes the opinion of the Kolbo, which states that this leniency applies only regarding barrels of earthenware. A hole made in a wooden barrel which is tightly plugged may not be opened.
|
| 5. |
Shabbat 146a mentions three levels where holes might be made: a) a hole above the level of the wine. This is intended merely to protect the fragrance of the wine.
b) a hole in the middle of the wine. Since the wine is not entirely above the hole, it needed not be fastened so tightly. This is the subject of the present clause.
c) a hole below the dregs. This is the subject of the following clause.
|
| 6. |
Since the entire weight of the wine rests on this hole, it must be fastened very tightly. Accordingly, opening it is considered tantamount to opening a new hole.
|
| 7. |
Barrels would be sealed closed with clay that was spread out and hardened at their opening.
|
| 8. |
Opening the seal in this irregular manner clearly indicates that one did not intend to fashion an opening. An opening is generally not located on the top of a cask (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:6).
|
| 9. |
A careful reading of the Rambam's wording indicates the need for this bracketed addition (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's approach in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:3), where he mentions making a hole in the side of the barrel.
|
| 10. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) states that it is forbidden to break a complete barrel. Just as one is liable for performing the forbidden labor of building when fashioning a vessel, one is liable for performing the forbidden labor of demolishing when destroying one. Although one is not liable unless one breaks the barrel as a constructive act, even when one's intent is destructive, doing so is forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 314:1; Mishnah Berurah 314:7). There are, however, later authorities who follow the Rambam's ruling, which permits destroying a utensil if one does not fashion it into a different utensil in the process.
|
| 11. |
Were one to make a carefully perforated hole, one would be fashioning it into a utensil (Rashi,Shabbat 146a).
|
| 12. |
Although a sword may not usually be carried on the Sabbath, it may be handled to perform a task that is permitted (Mishnah Berurah 314:24).
|
| 13. |
The Mishnah Berurah 314:25 states that this leniency applies only when guests are present.
|
| 14. |
This is also a restriction imposed, lest one complete the construction of a utensil.
|
| 15. |
See Halachah 11 of this chapter and also Chapter 11, Halachah 6.
|
| 16. |
See Chapter 22, Halachah 15.
|
| 17. |
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 314:11) follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and others, who maintain that one is allowed to close a barrel with a stone or a piece of wood, provided that one does not close it when wine is flowing out. The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 314:20; Mishnah Berurah 314:47), however, differ, and rule that the Rambam's decision should be followed.
|
| 18. |
Based on Shabbat 139b, many other authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), grant this leniency only to a Torah Sage, but not to a common person. Moreover, since Torah Sages of the caliber of those of the Talmudic era do not exist at present, there are authorities who do not permit this leniency at all in the present era.
|
| 19. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 16.
|
| 20. |
See the Hagahot Maimoniot, which states that one may knock on a door, because this is not a musical tone. Although there are stringent opinions, common practice is to follow the more lenient view.
|
| 21. |
Our translation is taken from the Mishnah Berurah 339:9. (See also the Be'ur Halachah, which mentions that some versions of the Mishneh Torah omit the Hebrew word או. According to this version, the meaning would be "to bang rhythmically on a board as singers do.")
|
| 22. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah (ibid.), which cites authorities who interpret the phrase "rhythmically as singers do" as an exclusion. These opinions maintain that snapping one's fingers to catch a colleague's attention is not forbidden. Nevertheless, it is common practice to act stringently and not to snap one's fingers at all.
|
| 23. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 339:3), who states that it is customary to allow clapping one's hands and dancing on the Sabbath and holidays. The rationale for this leniency is that today most people are not able to repair a musical instrument, and thus the rationale for our Sages' decree is no longer applicable.
It must, however, be noted that this leniency is granted only with regard to dancing and clapping hands, not playing drums or performing any of the activities mentioned in the previous halachah. Even dancing and clapping hands is allowed only in rejoicing associated with a mitzvah (Mishnah Berurah 339:10).
|
| 24. |
Although bathing is permitted, as above (Chapter 22, Halachah 20), swimming is not.
|
| 25. |
If the pool is located in the public domain, it is forbidden to swim within it for another reason: It is possible that one will spray water for more than four cubits (Mishnah Berurah 339:4).
|
| 26. |
As the Rambam continues to mention, the reed serves as a spigot through which water flowing from a cask can be directed.
|
| 27. |
Opened at the ends so that the wine can flow through it like a pipe.
|
| 28. |
Measured and trimmed to fit the barrel. This leniency is granted even if this reed has never been used for this purpose before (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 314:5).
|
| 29. |
In contrast to the reed mentioned above, which must merely be inserted into the barrel, it is necessary to fold the leaf and adjust it so that the wine will flow through (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 30. |
Rabbenu Asher and others follow the opinion of other Sages (Shabbat 146b), who explain that the reason for this decree is concern that one might pick a leaf on the Sabbath to use for this purpose. According to that opinion, if before the commencement of the Sabbath one has available many leaves that have been picked, one may use them for this purpose.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo defends the Rambam's ruling, and he quotes it in theShulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). The Ramah, however, quotes Rabbenu Asher's view.
|
| 31. |
The Maggid Mishneh and others cite Beitzah 4:4, which states that these items were used as makeshift frying pans. (Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah and Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:8.) Rav Kapach, however, raises the question: Since frying is forbidden on the Sabbath, of what use would these articles be?
|
| 32. |
A white powder, referred to as alum or tartar which serves as a natural polish.
|
| 33. |
Rashi (Shabbat 50a) and other commentaries differ and state that the prohibition stems from the forbidden labor of removing hair.
|
| 34. |
See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 323:11 and the Mishnah Berurah 323:38, which mention several restrictions regarding the use of sand for this purpose.
|
| 35. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam describes neter as a blue pumice stone used for detergent purposes. (See also Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 9:37.) It must noted that sodium is called natrium in Latin. This has led some to think that the intent is sodium bicarbonate, a natural cleanser.
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning the rationale for this restriction, explaining that it is not associated with the forbidden labor of dealing the final blow. Instead, it is prohibited so that one does not prepare on the Sabbath for a weekday. This opinion is also quoted byShulchan Aruch HaRav 323:6.
|
| 37. |
The intent is that one may wash only those utensils that one intends to use again. Even when a person will serve another meal on the Sabbath, if he is not intending to use certain utensils, he may not wash them. One may, however, wash utensils on Friday night, even though one does not intend to use them until Saturday afternoon (Mishnah Berurah 323:27-28).
|
| 38. |
I.e., one may wash the glasses at any time, because it may be assumed that one will desire to drink later. If, however, a person knows that he will not drink again on the Sabbath, it is forbidden for him to wash pitchers and glasses as well (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 323:6; Mishnah Berurah323:29).
|
| 39. |
Note, however, the Magen Avraham 302:6, who states that one may make a bed if the disorder in the room makes one extremely uncomfortable.
|
| 40. |
I.e., since the utensil was unfit for use before it was immersed, immersing it is equivalent to repairing it (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah 2:2; compare to Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:17). Based on Beitzah 18a, Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher offer other rationales for this prohibition.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 323:7), which mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether it is permitted on the Sabbath to immerse a vessel that one has purchased from gentiles. The Maggid Mishneh states that according to the Rambam, this would be forbidden. Accordingly, the Pri Megadim questions why the Shulchan Aruch ignores the Rambam's ruling. The Be'ur Halachah, however, differentiates between the immersion of vessels purchased from a gentile and the immersion of impure vessels.
|
| 41. |
The Mishneh Torah also contains laws that will be relevant when the Temple is rebuilt, and the observance of all the laws of ritual impurity will be restored. At present this halachah is relevant in the following contexts: Women are permitted to immerse themselves in the mikveh on Friday night (with certain restrictions) and men are allowed to immerse themselves on the Sabbath for the sake of holiness (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:7; Mishnah Berurah 326:24). Care, however, must be taken when toweling oneself dry not to squeeze water from the towel.
Originally, the license to immerse oneself in the mikveh on the Sabbath was given before it was customary to heat mikvaot. At present, the leniency is continued in most communities, even when the mikveh has been heated.
|
| 42. |
This activity is necessary as part of the purification process for a person who became impure because of contact with a human corpse. Rashi (Pesachim 65b) explains that this is forbidden because it is obvious that one's intent is to purify oneself. Rav Kapach, however, points toPesachim 69a, which states that the prohibition was instituted lest one carry in the public domain.
|
| 43. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 2:2), the Rambam explains that if the utensil contracted ritual impurity, its immersion would be forbidden, since one would be purifying not only the water it contains, but also the utensil itself.
|
| 44. |
See Hilchot Keilim 1:6.
|
| 45. |
The Ra'avad mentions that terumah may not be separated even if one's intent is to give it to the priest to use on the Sabbath itself.
|
| 46. |
See Halachah 14, where the Rambam offers another reason for this same prohibition.
|
| 47. |
The Merkevet HaMishneh notes that the Rambam does not mention Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with the forbidden labors of hunting, slaughtering, and skinning. The commentaries do note, however, that in Chapter 10 the Rambam mentions Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with hunting, and in Chapter 11 Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with slaughtering.
|
| 48. |
See Chapter 11, Halachot 5-6.
|
| 49. |
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 21, Halachah 23, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 327:1) writes that at present, it is not common for healthy people to apply oil to themselves. Therefore, it is forbidden to apply any type of oil to oneself on the Sabbath for therapeutic purposes.
|
| 50. |
See Chapter 22, Halachah 18, and notes.
|
| 51. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 26:5). Obviously, this bed-cover is made of leather. The Maggid Mishneh offers a different interpretation.
|
| 52. |
Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah 327:12, which cites opinions that prohibit applying oil to used leather.
|
| 53. |
See Chapter 11, Halachah 6.
|
| 54. |
See Halachah 3, which prohibits closing a hole in connection with the forbidden labors of dealing the final blow or of building.
|
| 55. |
See Chapter 11, Halachah 9.
|
| 56. |
It must be emphasized that according to the text of Shabbat 94b, it would appear that applying eye-paint is associated with the forbidden labor of dyeing. Nevertheless, it would appear that the Rambam and many other Rishonim had a different version of the text, upon which he based his ruling in this halachah.
|
| 57. |
See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 323), which mentions several leniencies and restrictions regarding the acquisition of foodstuffs on the Sabbath.
|
| 58. |
One may, however, give a present to a colleague. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 3:11.)
|
| 59. |
Note, however, Hilchot Eruvin 2:12, which allows one to rent a gentile's property on the Sabbath in order to complete an eruv.
|
| 60. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:2) offers another rationale for the restriction against hiring workers, the prohibitions stemming from Isaiah 58:13, "If you refrain... from [ordinary] speech" - i.e., that our speech on the Sabbath be distinguished from our speech during the week. The Rambam mentions prohibitions of this nature in Chapter 24.
|
| 61. |
See related matters in Chapter 6.
|
| 62. |
The difference between borrowing such commodities and lending objects is that when one borrows an object, one intends to return the same object. When one borrows a commodity, by contrast, one intends to use it and return a different one. Thus, it bears a far greater resemblance to a loan.
|
| 63. |
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi explains that "Give me as a loan" implies that the loan will be for an extended period. Hence, it is more likely that one will write it down.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:11) notes that in languages other than Hebrew, the difference between offering a loan and lending appears as one of semantics. Rather than say "Lend me" or "Give me as a loan," one should say merely "Give me."
|
| 64. |
The Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 323) follow a slightly more lenient approach and allow certain products to be sold by number and in vessels from which a measure can be obtained.
|
| 65. |
Compare to similar laws mentioned in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:19-24.
|
| 66. |
The ceremony through which a childless widow frees her brother-in-law from the obligation ofyibbum. (See the following note and Deuteronomy 25:7-10.)
|
| 67. |
This refers to the rite in which the brother-in-law of a childless widow marries her in order to perpetuate the name of her dead husband. (See Deuteronomy 25:5-6.)
|
| 68. |
According to Torah law, marriage is a two-staged process, including erusin (betrothal) - when a bond between a husband and wife is established, but the two still live separately - and nisuin(marriage) - when the couple begin their lives together.
Betrothal is initiated by the act of kiddushin. At present, this is effected by the groom's giving the wedding ring to his wife. It must be added that it is also forbidden to carry out nisuin on the Sabbath, but for a different reason: lest one violate the Sabbath laws when preparing for the wedding feast. (See Hilchot Ishut 10:14.)
|
| 69. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 339:4) states that divorce proceedings may not generally be carried out on the Sabbath, even if the bill of divorce was written beforehand.
|
| 70. |
This refers to the dedication of property to the Temple treasury or the consecration of an animal to be offered as a sacrifice.
|
| 71. |
See Leviticus 27:1-27.
|
| 72. |
See Leviticus 27:28-29.
|
| 73. |
See Halachah 9, where this reason is mentioned in connection with this prohibition.
|
| 74. |
See Leviticus 27:32.
|
| 75. |
For this was the common practice, as the Rambam mentions in Hilchot Bechorot 7:1. As mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 17, making a mark is considered a derivative of the forbidden labor of writing. Rabbenu Chanan'el, by contrast, explains that the prohibition against making this mark stems from the forbidden labor of dyeing.
Rav Moshe HaCohen of Lunil notes that, in contrast to produce, the Rambam does not mention the prohibition against tithing animals in connection with the forbidden labor of dealing the final blow. Unlike produce, according to Torah law, one is allowed to partake of meat from an animal even if it has not been tithed. Although there is a Rabbinic prohibition against partaking of such meat, tithing a herd is not considered as making an object fit for use.
|
| 76. |
When the fourteenth of Nisan falls on the Sabbath.
|
| 77. |
Since these offerings are associated with a fixed time, they will stand out distinctly in one's mind and will not cause one to forget the Sabbath prohibitions (Shabbat 148b, Hilchot Korban Pesach1:19).
|
| 78. |
The laws associated with sprinkling the water that has been mixed with the ashes of the red heifer are described in Numbers 19:11-21.
|
| 79. |
Note the Lechem Mishneh (in the gloss on Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:10), which states that this prohibition applies even when one has no other produce available. See also Sha'ar HaMelech,which questions whether the prohibition applies to others besides the person who violated the prohibition. Note also Chapter 3, Halachah 9, and Chapter 6, Halachah 23.
|
| 80. |
The participants in the transaction are, however, given stripes for rebelliousness, the prohibition instituted for the violation of a Rabbinic prohibition (Hilchot Mechirah 30:7).
|
| 81. |
Although the Rabbis forbade partaking of such produce before tithing it, they considered this as merely a safeguard, for the majority of the common people did separate the tithes. Therefore, one is not considered to be making an article fit for use to the same extent as when one separates tithes from produce that has surely not been tithed (Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro,Shabbat 2:7). This law is also mentioned in Chapter 24, Halachah 10.
|
| 82. |
Produce purchased from a common person, which we are unsure whether or not it has been tithed.
|
| 83. |
But did not separate these portions (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, D'mai 4:5).
|
| 84. |
The tenth of the tithe, which the Levites were required to give to the priests.
|
| 85. |
Which was given instead of the second tithe in the third and sixth years of the seven-year cycle.
|
| 86. |
The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.). There the Rambam emphasizes that the prohibition centers on giving the designated portions. This is borne out by his rulings in Hilchot Ma'aser 9:8-11, where he mentions leniencies in regard to the separation of the designated portions on the Sabbath if one makes a condition before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 87. |
If he does not inform them, it is as if he were using the designated gifts for his own personal purposes (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
|
| 88. |
This is forbidden even during the week, because the Rabbis deemed gambling to be theft, and also because this reflects conduct that does not contribute to the stability of society (Hilchot Gezeilah 6:7,11).
|
| 89. |
But not with outsiders, as reflected in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat23:2) and his rulings in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:20.
|
| 90. |
In the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 322:6), Rav Yosef Karo follows the interpretation of Shabbat 148b by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher, and forbids casting lots, even among one's own household, unless the portions are equal.
|
| 91. |
See, however, Chapter 24, Halachah 4, which states that one should minimize one's involvement in such idle matters on the Sabbath. Indeed, as is evident from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avot 1:16) and Hilchot De'ot 2:4, the Rambam frowns on such conversation during the week as well. To quote Hilchot Gezeilah 6:11: "It is not for a person to spend any of his days involved in anything other than the words of wisdom and the matters that lead to the settlement of the world."
|
| 92. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:13) renders the Hebrew שטרי הדיוטות as "account sheets." Rashi (Shabbat 149a) interprets this as also referring to social correspondence. Based on the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 23:2), the Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam follows Rashi's view.
[The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:14) permits reading a social letter on the Sabbath only if one is unaware of its contents.]
|
| 93. |
Erasing is one of the categories of forbidden labor, as the Rambam explains in Chapter 11, Halachah 9. Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss to Shabbat 149b) differs and explains that the restriction mentioned stems from the prohibitions derived from Isaiah 58:13, which distinguish between one's conduct on the Sabbath and one's involvement in mundane, weekday concerns.
|
| 94. |
Regarding this ruling, the Rambam writes (Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.), "On the Sabbath, it is forbidden to read anything other than the words of prophecy and their explanations [i.e., the Oral Law]. Among the matters excluded are [works of secular] wisdom and science."
|
| 95. |
Rashi (Shabbat 149a) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:15) interpret this as referring to descriptions written under works of art. Others explain that this refers to images of false deities. (In the Talmudic period, these two interpretations could easily be interrelated, because the subject matter of most gentile art was the false deities they worshiped.)
|
| 96. |
I.e., the Holy Writings, in contrast to the Torah and the prophets. This interpretation is obvious from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:1). Rashi (Shabbat 115a) mentions other opinions which forbid reading the works of the prophets as well.
|
| 97. |
See Chapter 30, Halachah 10, where the Rambam describes the attendance at the House of Study on the Sabbath.
|
| 98. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that the wording used by the Rambam indicates that a person in an adjoining courtyard where the fire has not yet caught may transfer all his property to a further removed courtyard if an eruv has been made. This concept is also mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 334:1).
|
| 99. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:11) mentions a further leniency: One may transfer property from a house to an adjoining house or to another courtyard that one owns. There is, however, a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether this leniency is accepted or not.
|
| 100. |
Another example of a leniency granted because of this principle is found in Chapter 6, Halachah 22.
|
| 101. |
The particular laws stemming from this principle are described in Halachot 21-25.
|
| 102. |
As examples, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) mentions cups and pitchers. From the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 334:17, it would appear that permission is granted only to save utensils one needs for eating, but not other articles - e.g., pillows and blankets - that might be required on the Sabbath.
|
| 103. |
See Halachah 25.
|
| 104. |
This restriction applies even according to the authorities who maintain that the prohibition against carrying in a lane is Rabbinic in origin. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:10 and the Mishnah Berurah334:26 mention that these restrictions do not apply with regard to saving clothes. Since one must wear them as garments, one may take them out to the public domain as well.
|
| 105. |
One may save enough for three meals for every member of his household. Regardless of whether a person eats a large amount or a small amount, a standard measure - and only that standard measure - of food may be saved for him (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:5).
|
| 106. |
This indicates that one may save several different containers containing different types of food.
|
| 107. |
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:6 and theMishnah Berurah 334:16, which emphasize that, even though one may pour the contents of several containers into a garment, one must empty the containers. It is forbidden to place the containers themselves in a garment and remove them.
|
| 108. |
I.e., even though the person who owns the property may not save more than his household needs, all of his food stores need not be left to the flames. Other people may be invited to save for themselves.
|
| 109. |
Since our Sages forbade the person from saving it, he despairs of ever recovering it and relinquishes his ownership.
The above applies only when the person makes an explicit statement inviting others to save the property. If he does not issue such an invitation, we cannot assume that he has relinquished ownership. Although he is forbidden from saving more himself, others are not allowed to take for themselves, for the owner may yet hope to find friends who will save the food and return it to him at no cost (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:7; Mishnah Berurah 334:22).
|
| 110. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 16:3 (based on Shabbat 120a)], the Rambam describes this as "God-fearing conduct," for it reflects an unwillingness to benefit from property that is not one's own. In this instance, this is particularly true, for the owner does not willingly abandon ownership of his property.
|
| 111. |
It is, however, pious conduct not to accept payment (Shabbat, loc. cit.).
|
| 112. |
The Maggid Mishneh and others draw attention to the Rambam's statements at the conclusion of Chapter 6, which forbid taking payment even for activities that are permitted on the Sabbath unless the wage is paid for a larger span of time. Rav David Arameah explains that the prohibition against taking payment for one's Sabbath activities is Rabbinic in origin. In this instance, because of the positive nature of the activity involved, the Sages did not impose any restrictions.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) explains that the article rightfully belongs to the person who saved it. Although he relinquishes ownership in favor of his original owner, he does not relinquish ownership of that portion of the article that is equivalent to his wage. What he is receiving from the owner is, in fact, payment for property that he was entitled to take possession of.
|
| 113. |
Since one is required to partake of the finest foods on the Sabbath, one is permitted to return and take the loaf baked with fine flour. It is possible to explain that because of the confusion caused by the fire, one forgot to take the better loaf originally.
The Rabbis explained that one may act with guile in this matter and, at the outset, take a loaf of lesser quality so that one can return and take a better loaf afterwards. Since one is not even transgressing a Rabbinic prohibition and will always be able to excuse oneself afterwards that this choice was due to confusion, no restrictions were imposed.
This leads to a further leniency. One may save, for example, a meal of fish, and then return and save a meal of meat, excusing oneself saying, "At first, I desired to partake of the fish. Afterwards, my appetite changed and I preferred the meat" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:3;Mishnah Berurah 334:12).
|
| 114. |
According to the fixed calendar we follow at present, Yom Kippur will not fall on either a Friday or a Sunday. This law, as many of the other laws in the Mishneh Torah, will apply only after the coming of the Redemption.
|
| 115. |
If Yom Kippur falls on Thursday and one knows that it will be impossible to prepare one's Sabbath needs on Friday, one is permitted to save food on Yom Kippur for the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:4; Mishnah Berurah 334:13). Similarly, one may save food on Yom Kippur for the meal following the fast, regardless of the day of week (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:4).
|
| 116. |
It appears that, according to the Rambam, one may not return and save other clothes. This is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages in the Mishnah (Shabbat 16:4). Rabbi Yosse maintains that one may return and put on a second set of clothes. Since one is not carrying the garments, but wearing them, we rule more leniently than regarding foodstuffs. This ruling is followed by the Rashba and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 334:8).
|
| 117. |
Since our Sages forbade a person from saving any more clothes, we assume that he despaired of recovering any more of his property. As mentioned above, many authorities accept this rationale only when the person actually invites others to save the clothes.
|
| 118. |
Although the Rambam is speaking about saving sacred texts from fire, the same laws apply to another factor - e.g., a flood - that might cause their ruin (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim334:19).
|
| 119. |
This term refers to the books of the Bible.
There is somewhat of a difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. He is quoting the Mishnah (Shabbat16:1). Nevertheless, the teachings of the Mishnah were appropriate in the beginning of the Talmudic era, when it was only the Written Law and not the Oral Law that was written down. The composition of the Mishnah marked a turning point in Jewish history, and from that point onward, it was permitted to write down the teachings of the Oral Law. (See the Rambam's Introduction to the Mishneh Torah.) Texts containing such teachings are also considered sacred articles and may be saved from a fire, just like the books of the Bible (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:12;Mishnah Berurah 334:31). Since the Rambam wrote the Mishneh Torah after it became permitted to write down the Oral Law, seemingly, it would have been appropriate for him to refer to texts of the Oral Law as well.
|
| 120. |
According to the Rambam, such an lane is considered a private domain according to Torah law, and the prohibition against carrying within it is only Rabbinic in origin (Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Accordingly, this restriction is relaxed in order to save the sacred articles. Although some authorities differ with the Rambam regarding the above halachah, they also require an lane to have three walls and a pole in this instance (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:17; Mishnah Berurah334:48).
|
| 121. |
I.e., the script in which tefillin, mezuzot, and Torah scrolls are written. (See Sanhedrin 22a; the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Yadayim 4:5; and the Moznaim Mishneh Torah series,Hilchot Tefillin 1:19.)
|
| 122. |
I.e., and not a transliteration of other languages.
|
| 123. |
As explained above, the Rambam's ruling applied in the Talmudic period, before it became acceptable to write the Oral Law. Once that was permitted, translations of the Bible were also permitted, and the same laws apply to them. Similarly, siddurim and other similar texts may be saved.
|
| 124. |
As mentioned above, after permission was granted to write the Oral Law, this prohibition no longer applies.
|
| 125. |
Our translation is based on Rashi (Shabbat 115a) and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 334:12).
|
| 126. |
Which are not acceptable for writing a Torah scroll (Hilchot Tefillin 1:5).
|
| 127. |
See Hilchot Sefer Torah, Chapters 8 and 9, which mention how much empty parchment must be left for each of the situations mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 128. |
This refers to an instance where these blank portions of parchment had been cut from the Torah scroll. When a portion of a scroll does not contain 85 letters (see the following halachah), it is no longer considered to be sacred articles (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:20; Mishnah Berurah334:50). Surely this applies to the margins of the scroll that the Rambam is referring to in this halachah.
|
| 129. |
I.e., a text similar to our siddurim (Rashi, Shabbat 115b).
|
| 130. |
As mentioned above, after permission was granted to write the Oral Law, siddurim were also accorded the status of sacred articles (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:12).
Regarding amulets containing verses, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. The Tur(Orach Chayim 334) differs with the Rambam and maintains that in the present age, such amulets may be saved. Even though most of the later authorities follow the Rambam's ruling, thePri Megadim suggests saving amulets with verses that contain God's name.
|
| 131. |
The expression "a total" implies that the letters need not be in the same word, but may be scattered throughout the scroll (Rashi, Shabbat 115b).
In certain contexts, the passage ויהי בנסוע הארון is considered a separate book of the Torah. (See Rashi's commentary on the verse.) Since that passage contains 85 letters, any parchment with 85 letters can be considered a scroll.
|
| 132. |
I.e., the scroll may contain more letters, but if the letters are in words that are partially torn or rubbed out, they are not included in this sum.
|
| 133. |
I.e., words whose origin is not Hebrew.
|
| 134. |
The commentaries question the Rambam's statements, since as stated above, the passage ויהי בנסוע הארון contains 85 letters. See also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:15 which states that if a scroll contains God's name, it should be saved even though it contains less than 85 letters.
|
| 135. |
I.e., the carrying case is considered as subordinate to the scroll. Therefore, it is not considered an independent entity, but is rather governed by the more lenient laws that govern the Torah scroll.
|
| 136. |
Although the money is muktzeh, there is no need to shake it from the carrying case, and it may be taken to the same place as the tefillin. This leniency was granted so that a person would not be required to delay in saving the property that he was entitled to save (Shulchan Aruch HaRav334:18).
|
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Friday, Tevet 20, 5776 · 01 January /2016
"Today's Day"
Monday Tevet 20 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: However, the essence (p. 47)...and its delights. (p. 47).
The Mitteler Rebbe answered someone at yechidus: When two discuss a subject in avoda and they study together, there are two Divine souls1 against one natural soul.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Tanya chapters 1 and 2 for an introduction to the concept of two souls. In our context the point is this: Each Divine soul(neshama) desires not only that the person himself fulfill G-d's Will (to study Torah and be active in avoda) but also desires that another do so. Selfless concern for another's spiritual welfare is, after all, part of the basic "goodness" and character of the neshama. By contrast, the hedonistic natural soul is basically self-centered; it is not driven by a desire that anothershould enjoy physical pleasures etc. So, when two Jews study Torah together, the natural soul within each of them attempts to hinder that person alone. The G-dly soul, however, since it also desires the other's welfare, joins forces with hisneshama, so that "...there are two Divine souls against one natural soul."---------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Friday, Tevet 20, 5776 · 01 January /2016
"Today's Day"
Monday Tevet 20 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: However, the essence (p. 47)...and its delights. (p. 47).
The Mitteler Rebbe answered someone at yechidus: When two discuss a subject in avoda and they study together, there are two Divine souls1 against one natural soul.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Tanya chapters 1 and 2 for an introduction to the concept of two souls. In our context the point is this: Each Divine soul(neshama) desires not only that the person himself fulfill G-d's Will (to study Torah and be active in avoda) but also desires that another do so. Selfless concern for another's spiritual welfare is, after all, part of the basic "goodness" and character of the neshama. By contrast, the hedonistic natural soul is basically self-centered; it is not driven by a desire that anothershould enjoy physical pleasures etc. So, when two Jews study Torah together, the natural soul within each of them attempts to hinder that person alone. The G-dly soul, however, since it also desires the other's welfare, joins forces with hisneshama, so that "...there are two Divine souls against one natural soul."---------------------• Daily Thought:
A Real Fool
To live with the truth, you must be a fool. Because the truth is infinite, and we are all fools before the infinite.
What kind of fool?
A fool who does good with simple sincerity
and disregard for worldly opinion.
Learn from this world we live in
The world is a fool—only that it is a mindless, stupid fool.
:--------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment