{
"title": "Arukh HaShulchan",
"language": "en",
"versionTitle": "merged",
"versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Arukh_HaShulchan",
"text": {
"Orach Chaim": [
[
"It is written: “The path of life is above the intelligent person, in order that he turn away from the grave below.” (Mishlei 15:24). This verse's intent requires a preface: The angels were created as part of the spiritual world on the second day, and although it is not explicitly stated in the Torah, it is stated in the Midrash and alluded to in the Psalm (Tehilim 104:3-4) – “Who roofs His upper chambers with water; Who makes clouds His chariot, which go on the wings of the wind. He makes winds His messengers, burning fire His ministers.” [NOTE: The psalmist is referring to the primordial water and the angels together, since both were created on the second day]. The animals were created as part of the physical world on the fifth day. Angels are intelligent, serve their creator, and do not have self-serving, physical drives. Animals, on the other hand, have such drives, but lack intelligence. The result is that angels cannot receive reward for their service, as they have no negative drives to overcome, and animals cannot be punished for their actions, as they do not have the intelligence necessary to overcome their drives.",
"Therefore G-d found it necessary to create man on the sixth day, and He created him with competing drives: Man possesses a spiritual soul that enables him to recognize the creator as does an angel, as the verse states: “Man’s soul is G-d’s lamp…” (Mishlei 20:27). He also possesses an animalistic nature due to his physical body, which drives him to animal behaviors, such as eating, drinking, and sleeping.This state of affairs gives rise to a constant struggle within man all the days of his life, with his animal nature pining for physical desires, while his pure soul opposes such pursuits, inspiring man to turn to his real purpose, to serve G-d like an angel. His soul further insists that even necessary physical needs, such as eating, drinking, and sleeping, should be done with intent to better serve G-d, and on this the verse has been stated: “I have placed G-d before me constantly.” (Psalms 16:8). After man’s death he is shown on high that all his actions were recorded, as though in a book, with his own signature. If he has followed the path of Torah and mitzvos, he inherits heaven (Lit. 'Gan Eden') which is a limitless and endless spiritual joy. Of these people the verse proclaims \"They will be sated from the fat of Your house, and with the stream of Your delights You give them to drink. For with You is the source of life; in Your light we will see light. \" (Psalms 36:9). If G-d forbid his actions were the opposite, he inherits Gehenom, to which all the pains of this life are as naught in comparison. On these people the verse states: \"And they shall go out and see the corpses of the people who rebelled against Me, for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring for all flesh.\" (Yishayahu 66:24). There are seven descriptions given to Gehenom: Nether-world (or Sheol), Destruction, Pit, Tumultuous Pit, Miry Clay, Shadow of Death and the Underworld. (Eruvin 19a). One who is seduced by his base inclinations falls there, and that is why it is also called 'seducer', as the verse states \"For Tophteh (Heb. related to the word 'seduce') is set up from yesterday, that too has been prepared for the king (Sennacherib and his army), it deepened, it widened its pile, of fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord is like a stream of brimstone, burning therein.(Yishayahu 30:33). (Eruvin 19a).",
"Returning to the advice of King Solomon stated above, that \"The path of life is above the intelligent person, in order that he turn away from the grave below.\" (Mishlei 15:24). The explanation can now be said to be: \"Man, consider that you have two paths before you, either to raise your eyes and heart to the Creator, blessed be He, and that is the path of life, or to cast your stare downward to the base animal instincts. Therefore I command you that your life's path should only be to look upwards, in order that you remove yourself from the pit below.\" The point here is that if you train your stare towards your base instincts you will as consequence be led by them to fall to the pit - \"Sheol\", the first of the levels, and from there your path will descend lower and lower.",
"Anyone possessing intelligence should also consider the following: If you see a human king building a grand palace, you will notice opposites among the construction materials. There will be precious stones, such as jasper and onyx, as well as other fine materials. There will also be cement, clay, and earth. Does one think that the intent of the king is for the clay and earth? Of course not! Certainly the purpose of the building is to showcase the fine materials and precious stones, while the cement, clay, and earth only serve to strengthen the structure. Similarly, the King of Kings the Holy One blessed be He created man from a pure spiritual soul which is a part of the divine, and she returns to G-d after death. And as for the biological material that the body is made of, which in reality is no different than clay and earth, can anyone think that the purpose of man is for that material? Anyone who thinks so can only be a fool, and not in his right mind. This, then is what Akavia ben Mahalalel meant when he said (Pirkei Avot 3:1) \"Look to three things and you will not come to sin. Know where you came from, where you are going...\" - this means the soul, which is a part of the divine and will return to its source, and it’s opposite, the body: \"where you came from...\" - from a fetid drop (of semen). \"...and to where are you going...\" - To a place of earth and the worm. Here too, the explanation is that the purpose of man is his G-dly soul. Therefore, since one's purpose is G-dliness and matters of the soul, before all else a person needs to know the foundation concepts of our holy and pure Torah.",
"The foundation of Torah and the pillar of the divine service is to know that there is one God. who is singular and unique, and that He created the Worlds(i.e this world and the next world), and that he is constantly watching us. If, God forbid, he suddenly stopped watching and guiding the world even for a moment, it would revert to chaos and disorder. This is the essence of what is stated: (Deuteronomy 6:4) 'Listen, oh Israel, Hashem, your God, is One'.",
"This G-d we are obligated to love with a complete and unreserved love, until the love of oneself, one's wife, sons, daughters and money are completely nullified in the presence of his love for G-d, as though they did not exist. This also has been stated in Torah (Devarim 4.5): \"You should love G-d, your G-d, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your money (Heb. 'Mo-adecha'). This term 'Mo-adecha' is related to the Hebrew 'Ma-od', meaning 'very much', as if to say: \"whatever is very much beloved by you should be considered null and void in the presence of your love for G-d.\" \"...all your heart...\" - Our Rabbis have expounded on this: \"with both of your inclinations, the good inclination as well as the evil.\" This means to say that one should not ask 'If the evil inclination only tries to seduce one to transgress the will of G-d, why was it created?' The truth is that the intent of the evil inclination is that man should overpower him and not listen to him, but G-d has nevertheless created him to test whether man will transgress G-d's will, in order that one should serve G-d through free will and not as one forced by instinct. This is the ultimate purpose of the creation of man, and through this ability he is even greater than an angel, as I have written in section 1. [It is also explained in the Zohar along these lines PERHAPS VOLUME 3, FOLIO 68.2]",
"In the Sifrei (Dvarim, 32) we find the following exposition: \"Rabbi Meir said: When it states \"And you should love G-d, your G-d, with all your heart...\" it means to love G-d like Avraham, as it states: \"Avraham, my beloved\", and also \"...and you found his heart faithful before you.\" \"...with all your soul\" (end of section 32) - like Yitzchak, who allowed himself to be brought on the altar. \"...with all your money\" (end of section 32) - admit to him how much in his debt you are, like Yaakov, who said \"I have been made small by all your kindness...\" The text continues: \"And you should love...\" - Make Him be loved by all people, as Avraham you father did, as the verse states: \"...the souls he made in Charan.\" The meaning here is to behave like Abraham, who called on the populous to believe in G-d and engage in His service because of the great love for G-d that he had in his heart and soul. We read further: \"Even though the Torah proclaims 'And you should love Him...' I still do not know how. Therefore, the verse states further 'These words that I command you today should be on your heart...' - that through these words you will recognize Him who spoke and created the world.\" This text is explaining that contemplation of the Torah will certainly implant love for G-d in one's heart. (Sefer haChinuch, Mitzvah 417)",
"We are also commanded to fear the Blessed One, as the verse states (Devarim 6.13): \"The L-ord your G-d you should fear\", and here are the words of the Rambam concerning this trait in Sefer haMitzvos, mitzvah 4: \"He has commanded us to be consciously aware of His exalted presence, and to tremble before Him, and not be like the heretics who presumptuously follow their own hearts; rather we should be concerned and mindful of His corrective punishment at all times, which is a consequence of sinful behavior. This then is the meaning of \"The L-ord your G-d you should fear.\" That is his comment in the above source. In his great work (the Mishna Torah), in the beginning of the second chapter of the fundamentals of the Torah, he writes thus: \"What is the path towards love and fear of G-d? When a person contemplates the wondrous actions and creations of G-d, and he sees in them wisdom without end or measure, immediately he loves, praises and glorifies Him. He also experiences a great desire to know his great name [TO KNOW HIM?], as Dovid has said: \"My soul thirsts for the L-ord, the living G-d\". When he continues to think about such matters, he has an immediate reflex to shrink away, and he experiences a fear and trembling, realizing that he is a small and inconsequential creation, with little intellect compared to the One of complete knowledge. Dovid has also stated regarding this: \"When I see the heavens, the work of your fingers, I ask 'what is man that you take notice of him'?\" Until here is his language. As can be seen, in the Sefer haMitzvos the explanation of 'simple fear' is fear of punishment, while here the Rambam refers to a higher fear, which is fear from the recognition of G-d's great loftiness. On this subject the Sifrei (Dvarim, 32) has stated: \"There is no love in fear's place, nor fear in love's place, except for that of G-d alone.\" (see there). This means to say that fear and love are opposites, but through fear of G-d's vast loftiness they can dwell together, that through the recognition of the great, exalted stature of the Blessed One he is feared with an 'enlightened fear', and he is loved with all of one's heart and soul.",
"And we have been commanded to walk along G-d's path of goodness and righteousness, as the verse says, \"you should travel in His ways\" (Deut. 26:13). Furthermore it says, \"After Hashem your G-d you shall go\" (Deut. 13:5). And furthermore it says, \"'to travel in all of His ways' (Deut 10:12)- just as He is gracious, you shall also be gracious. Just as he is merciful, you shall also be merciful\" (a similar idea appears on Sotah 14b)\". And [we are commanded] to emulate His positive actions and positive righteous traits to the best of our ability. It is a positive commandment to be attached to wise men and their students in order to learn from their actions as the verse says, \"and to him you shall be devoted\" (Deut. 13:5). Is it possible for one to be attached to the Sechinah (divine presence) if it is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24)? Rather, to be attached to the wise men and their students (Ketuvos 111b), to spread dirt before their feet and to drink their knowledge with thirst, as the verse says, \"he who goes with the wise will become wise\" (Proverbs 13:20). And furthermore it says, \" the praises of a man are that he did not follow the counsel of the wicked\" (Psalms 1:1).",
"The Smag (Sefer Mitzvos Gedolos) wrote in the seventeenth positive commandment: It is a positive commandment to justify the judgement on all events as it says, \"you shall know with your heart that when a man chastens his son, Hashem your G-d chastens you\" (Deut. 8:5). Until here are his words. And us, Children of Israel are tired from the times, without rest for close to two thousand years- we are obligated to know that this is for our benefit and our merit, like the prophet Zachariah said, \"I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call my name and I will answer them. I will say, 'they are my people', and they will say, 'Hashem is my G-d'\" (Zechariah 13:9). The explanation of that which is written: to believe with total belief that all of our troubles and all of our being jolted is not on the path of revenge, G-d forbid, but rather to refine us. If not so, we would not have any remainders over the course of the many centuries, and there is no sign or great wonder from this that we have stood such for such a long period of time as this. For this is only the supervision of the Almighty over us, that has not disappear nor will disappear for even one moment, like a father who supervises his only son and agonizes him for his benefit. A proof for this: Surely, for all time in exile \"he will call me name and I will answer him\" (Psalms 91). Meaning, when we pray to Him, the Almighty,- He answers us in every time of trouble and distress. \"I will say, 'they are my people', and they will say...\" (Zechariah 13:9). Meaning, that we surely see this entire prolonged period of time the nation of the Children of Israel travel on the path of Torah and commandment, He Almight calls us \"my people\" and we call him, \"G-d of Israel\".",
" ",
" ..."
],
[
"We have already written that even when one is in the most secluded setting, one must act modestly, because the Holy One Blessed Be He fills the entire world with His Glory.Therefore, if one slept naked, one should not rise from his bed naked, but should rather dress while lying down; one cannot even dress (naked) while sitting, because (if one does so), half of his body will be exposed. (The proper way of dressing is as follows:) one should take his clothing, enter his head and arms in lying, thus when he arises he is dressed. The same when he go to sleep and put his clothing off, he may not do this standing or sitting- but lying and covered. And he may put the clothing near so when he wakes up he won't have to sit exposed. And this is of the modesty trait. And he may not say- \"who sees me?\"- because His glory full all the earth. (And it doesn't matter if his feet bare, nor in the shower).",
"He may keep his clothing straight- that the inner side won't be turned out and then the stitches and fringes of the clothing will be seen and he will be disregarded in the eyes of people. And this was said about the \"chaluk\"- a clothing that has little difference between the outer and inner sides- so it's simple in other clothings. The way a man have to keep from people gossip, he may keep from people thinking bad of him. In tractate Shabbath we learn: \"Who is Talmid Chaham? the one who keep his clothing straight to turn it\". I.e. even if he has already gotten dressed and he now sees that it's inside out, he turns it right side out. And a regular man is not careful to do so. But the best is that everyone will do so. And if for \"Chaluk\" it is so, -- then how much more so, for other clothes. In Bava Batra we learn: \"How is the clothing of Talmid Chaham? a garment such that the body is not seen under (through) it. Rashbam explains it's for people going barefooted and they need long clothing so his feet won't be seen. In our days it's irrelevant. But the Rambam (Maimonides) in the fifth chapter of Laws of Human Dispositions explains that the Talmud refers to thin clothes, that are so thin that the body can be seen through them. We also learn there: \"How is Tallit of a Talmid Chaham? A long one thus the Chaluk is not seen beneath it \"Tefach\" (about 8 cm.). \"Tallit\" is the upper cloth and the meaning is that the lower cloth won't be longer than the upper. Any Talmid Chaham who has \"Revav\" on his clothing, i.e. fat or grease or any kind of dirt - deserves capital punishment because he makes people hate the Torah. (Shabbath there). But his clothes will be clean. And Talmid Chaham may not wear patched shoes such that one patch is on the other, for he will be disgraced, except for the winter that he goes in mood.",
"And these are the words of the Rambam there Law 9: \"The clothing of a Talmid Chacham is nice and clean, and it is forbidden that a stain or oil, etc. should be found in his clothes. And he shouldn't wear purple clothing — since everyone would look upon the clothing — neither should he wear clothing of poverty — since it disgraces the wearer — rather he should wear nice clothes that are in-between these two extremes. And his skin shouldn't be seen beneath his clothing, like the clothing made out of light flax that is made in Egypt. And his clothing shouldn't hang on the ground, like that of someone low-spirited. Rather, the clothing should reach until his ankles, and his sleeves up until the tips of his fingers... And he shouldn't go out to the market perfumed, or his clothes perfumed, nor should he put perfume in his hair. But if he anointed himself with perfume in order to remove a stinky smell — it is permitted. Also, he should not go out alone at night, unless he had a fixed time to go out to his studies. And all this is to fend against suspicion.\" (See Brachot 43b, and in Chullin 91a, that explains that \"all this\" is to fend against demons. Requires further investigation.)",
"He also writes there in Law 7: \"A Talmid Chacham shouldn't shout when he is talking; he shouldn't raise his voice, but rather speak softly with all the creations (i.e. humans). And when he speaks softly, he should not speak from too far a distance lest he sound haughty. Also, he should precede his friend in greeting. And judge every person with the benefit of the doubt. He should mention his friend's praises and never his friends faults. 'Love peace and chase peace.' (Avot 1:12). If he sees that his words will be helpful and heard — he should speak. Otherwise — he should keep silent... And he should not speak except with wisdom and kindness etc. And he should not converse with a woman in the market, even if she is his wife or his sister or his daughter.\" And all the more so he should not become accustomed to swears and oaths. Also, he shouldn't eat his meals in a lot of places. And he should distance himself from settlements of fools and from people who are not respectable.",
"We say at the end of Masechet Horayot: there are five things that cause one to forget their learning: Eating from what a mouse or cat has eaten from; and eating an animal's heart; and regularly eating olives; and drinking the excess water from washing; and washing his legs one atop the other. And there are those who say: even one that lays his vessels — that is to say, his clothing — beneath his head. And five things that cause one to remember their learning: Eating toasted bread, and all the more so the burnt parts themselves; and eating a soft roasted egg without salt (see Rashi on Shabbat 38b, \"בשביל\"); and one who is accustomed to olive oil; and accustoming oneself with wine and spices; and drinking excess water from dough. And there are some who say: even one who dips his finger in salt and then eats.",
"It is also found there: There are ten things that are hard for learning (to understand what one is learning): passing beneath the straps of a camel, and all the more so beneath the camel itself; and passing between two camels; and passing between two women; and a woman passing between two men; and passing beneath the bad stench of a corpse; and passing beneath the bridge that water hasn't passed beneath it for forty days; and eating bread that isn't cooked all the way; and eating meat from the spoon that is used to stir the pot; and drinking from the pool that passes through a cemetery; and looking in the face of the dead. And there are some who say: even reading the writing that is on the gravestone, see there. And there are those that have written that wearing two garments together is also hard for forgetting (causes one to forget) (Magen Avraham in the name of Kavanot). Regarding shoes, however, we are not strict.",
"Our rabbis, the writers of the Shulchan Aruch Paragraph 4 wrote: \"One should put on their right shoe first and shouldn't tie it, then put on the left shoe and tie it, and then should return to the right shoe and tie it. And our shoes that have no tie — one should put on the right shoe first. And when one is removing their shoes — they should remove their left foot first.\" Until here is their language. And also with socks, when putting on, right first, and when taking off, left first (Shulchan Aruch, the Garshaz). And there are those that argue on this (Artzot Ha'Chayim), but we don't follow that opinion. And also in their tying, as we tie our socks on the leg, that are called \"paduskas\" — so too, here: one should put on his right sock first but not ties it, then put on the left sock and tie it and then tie the right one. And thus we practice, and one shouldn't stray from the words of our Rabbis the writers of the Shulchan Aruch. And also the Tur ruled like this, see there.",
"As an explanation of the matter: since in every place the Torah gives honor to the right, for instance in the service of the Temple, that only the right is valid for the service. And it is so in the sprinkling on the thumb and the big toe in Parashat \"Metzora\" it is written: \"The right [hand/foot].\" Also it is so that in all the doings of people — the right is preferred. Therefore, one should dress the right side first. Also therefore, in undressing one should remove the garment on the left first, so that the right will be dressed for longer, since respect of a limb is when it is covered and dressed. Yet, regarding the tying of Tefillin we find that the Torah gave respect to the left, since the Tefillin is tied on the left arm. And thus, everything regarding tying — we give priority to the left. And everything regarding putting on garments — we give priority to the right, and this is according to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And so it is found in Gemara Shabbat (61a) that Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak said that Mar the son of Revana did so. Yet all of our Rabbis the Rishonim — the Rif, and the Rambam, and the Rosh, and the Mordechai, and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (SM\"G) — left this idea out completely and didn't mention it at all. And the reason is clear, since after what it says there (ibid): \"Rav Ashi says, we see that Rav Kahana was not strict on this matter.\" See there, and Rav Ashi is a later Amora [and we always follow the later opinions]. (And in the Artzot Ha'Chayim he writes that Mar the son of Revina is the same generation as Rav Ashi, see there. But this is not the case, since here it is Mar the son of \"RAVNA\", and not \"REVINA\". And about him Rav Ashi says in Yevamot (22a): \"Isn't Mar the son of Ravna signed on it?\" [Mar the son of Ravna] was an earlier Amora.. And anyway this idea is mentioned in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, since Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak said: \"Someone who is God-fearing should go out...\", and it is upon us to uphold the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.)",
"\"A person is forbidden to walk four Amot standing upright, as it is written: 'The whole land is filled with [God's] glory'\" (Kidushin 31a). \"And anyone that walks standing upright — it is as if he is pushing the legs of the Omnipresence\" (Brachot 43b). And the Gemara's intention is not that one should walk hunched over, but rather that one shouldn't walk too straight with his neck outstretched like people with too much pride. And these are the words of the Rambam in the fifth chapter from Hilchot Da'ot, Law 8: \"A Talmid Chacham should not walk straight and with an outstrectched neck, like it is written, 'And they went with their throats outstretched.' Also, one should not walk with his heel to his big toe, like women and haughty people, as it is written: 'The women would go with their feet close together'. And one shouldn't run in public areas like the crazies, and shouldn't stoop over like people who suffer from a hunched back, but rather look down, like one who is standing in prayer. And one who is walking in the market should look like he is busy with his business. Also from the stride of a person can it be recognized whether he is wise and full of knowledge or if he is dim-witted. And so said Shlomo in his wisdom: \"And also in the way that a fool walks his heart is empty, and he is telling everyone that he is a fool.'\"",
"It is written in Kiddushin there (31a): \"Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshuah would not walk four Amot with an exposed head. He would say, 'The Omnipresence is above my head.'\" And he himself said in Masechet Shabbat (118b): \"Good will come to me, since I did not go four Amot with an exposed head.\" And there (156b) it is written: \"Cover your head, so that there will be upon you awe of Heaven.\" And it is brought there a case in which exposing of the head brings a person to sin. And it is brought in Masechet Kallah: \"One time elders were sitting in the gate and two children passed before them, one with a covered head, one with an exposed head. They investigated after the one that had his head exposed and it was found that he is a Mamzer, the son of a women who had been in Niddah, see there. And the idea is that the head, that inside it is the brain, which is the source of wisdom and awe — it is not fitting to be exposed before the Blessed One, that the whole land is filled with [God's] glory, just as one shouldn't stand in a holy place with a exposed head. And if he doesn't cover his head, his inclination overpowers him without any feeling. And we have from the Great Rabbis that explain that at its essence there is a prohibition against having an exposed head, and there are some that explain that it is only a Middah of Chasidut, the right thing to do, but not neccesarily required. However, if you look you will find that it is the common practice. (But in a forced position, such as in the courts of the emperor may his name be glorified, where by the law of the land one may not walk with his head covered — he is permitted to leave his head uncovered. But in a non-forced position, whoever wants to merit awe of Hashem should make sure he does this. Enough said for an understanding person. And if you investigate, you will see that it is simple.)",
"Also, he should check if he has to go to the bathroom before prayer, as Rabbi [Yochanan] says (Brachot 15a): \"One who wants to take upon himself the yoke of heaven fully — he should go to the bathroom and wash his hands, and he should put on Tefillin, and he should say Sh'ma, and he should pray [the Shemoneh Esreh].\" And a person should become accustomed to go to the bathroom in the morning and in the evening, it is being careful and clean. And one only has to check himself. But if he checked and nothing comes out, even if he imagines that he needs to go to the bathroom — he is considered a \"clean body\" anyway, and is required to pray. And if, God forbid, the time for saying Sh'ma passes because of this [having to go to the bathroom] — the Torah wasn't given to angels, it was given to humans — what can he do? Many people make a mistake about this, thus one should warn them. And he shouldn't walk around with parts of his body naked. And he shouldn't walk around barefoot, since there is nothing more offensive than someone that walks around barefoot."
],
[
"It is written, \"His angels will be commanded to you, to watch over you on all of your travels\". On Shabbos (Meseches (Tractate) Shabbos) 119b we say,\"two angles escort a person\". In Chagigah 16a, it comes to say, \" the two angels that escort this person testify on his behalf\". Therefore, the Sages commanded (Brachos 60b) that when one needs to enter the bathhouse, he should say before he enters \"be honored, respected and holy ones, the rulers of above! Watch over me! Watch over me! Help me! Help me! Wait for me until I enter and come out, since this is the way of man!\". Its explanation: This person is mentioning that the angels are too holy to enter into the bathhouse and therefore, they should wait for him to exit from there. He is asking them to protect him from demons. This is the true meaning of that which is written, \"His angels will be commanded to you, to watch over you on all of your travels\". Meaning, wherever one is forced to go, even into a place where the angles cannot enter. The mentioned safeguarding is from demons as was written in prior times, \"You shall not fear the fright of night...destruction that ravages at noon\" (Tehillim 91). This that one says, \"Help me!\" is in regard to cleanliness since at the exit of the uncleanliness (excrement) is something that dependent upon all beings; therefore, one says,\"this is the way of man!\", meaning, \"what shall be done if someone is forced to do this?\".",
"Now, we no longer have the tradition to say this (\"be honored...\"). This was the tradition of the first and pious whose thoughts were always devoted to G-d. About them it is said, \"He who dwells in the covert of the Most High will lodge in the shadow of the Almighty\" (Psalms 91:1). They felt the holiness of those who escorted them (the angels) and therefore, it was pleasant for them to say so (\"be honored...\"). We (in modern times), also have the escort of angles, like the sages of blessed memory have explained (and as we have explained above); however, we can not feel their holiness at all. Our saying this is considered arrogant and egotistical and it appears as arrogance as well. Certainly a holy man who is involved with Torah in holiness needs to say this, but not us, only regular people. This is the essence and this is the practice. (The \"Artzot HaChaim\" questions this, but the way I have written this is correct. Refer and you find it easily).",
"One should act modestly in the bathroom, and one is not called \"modest\" unless he is modest in the bathroom (Berachot 62a). That is to say, that he acts modestly in the bathroom, all the more so in other places. This is what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Deot (Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 5, 6): Torah Scholars conduct themselves with great modesty: they don't disgrace themselves, and do not reveal their head or body. Even when they go to the washroom they should be modest, they shouldn't remove their clothes until seated, they shouldn't wipe with their right hand. And he should distance himself from everyone, and enter a room within a room, a cave within a cave, and only then defecate. And if he defecates behind a wall, he should distance himself so that he doesn't hear another if he is making sounds. And if he defecates in a valley, he should distance himself so that nobody sees his nakedness. And he should not speak while he is defecating, even for a great need. And just like he is modest in the washroom during the day, so too should he be at night. And one should always defecate in the morning and the night only, to avoid the need of distancing himself (from others). Until here is his writing, and he omitted some laws that he will outline. And I do not know his reasoning.",
"He should shut the door behind him, and two people should not go inside the washroom together. And regarding women they said in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 19a): they enacted that women should converse in the bathroom, see there. And this is regarding washrooms in the fields and not in the city. Therefore, nowadays, women, too, should not enter together (Magen Avraham). "
],
[],
[
"",
"And in all blessings we speak to Him may He be Blessed, in the second person- Blessed are You. And in expressions of thanks and praises there occurs the frequent term \"You-He\" including both second and third persons (Heb.- these are called \"present\"- 2nd person, and \"hidden\"- 3rd person.) And the concept is can be understood thusly: G-d's essential being is hidden beyond all that is hidden, and even the different kinds of angels do not know it. It is only through His actions that He is known to us and to the angels ... this is why we say \"You-He,\" meaning, You on the side of Your actions, He, on the side of His Essence. Therefore in our prayers, when we are asking that God should do x and y, we are speaking on the level of actions, hence we say \"You.\" And so too with all kinds of blessings... this is why we say \"You\" in the form of presence (2nd person)."
],
[
"The blessing of \"who creates\" is unique among the blessings. For all of the other blessings are short and explicit, like the blessing of the enjoyers; when one eats bread one says \"Who draws out bread . . .\" and so the rest, and similarly the morning blessings. But this blessing is long, and its subject is not even mentioned. And in my humble opinion the truth of it is that the Sages did not find a place in this blessing to mention the discharge of the orifices. One: Because it is not a polite matter. Also: It is impossible to compare this to the blessing of the enjoyers, even though a person enjoys his healthy discharges, because all blessings of the enjoyers are said before the act. And also: All the blessings of the enjoyers refer to optional enjoyments, but this act is mandatory. And if this blessing be compared to the universal practice of morning blessings, are those not but once a day. And therefore the Sages of blessed memory decreed of man's creation, for it is obvious about private hygiene that it should not be explicit. And this is the reason of the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh, who explained the reason of this blessing, which is not their usual approach, as they are not commentators, but because it is relevant to the matter. (And similarly the Rosh and the Ran at the start of Ketubot on wedding blessings. And it seems to me further that this is the reason of RMA on part 5, who required us to bless \"who created\" in the morning even if that does not correspond to the necessaries, see there. And many are shocked by him, but according to what I have written that this is about the creation of man -- it comes out good. And investigate, for you will find it easy.)"
],
[
"Our teachers, the compilers of the Shulchan Aruch wrote as follows: “throughout the day, when one uses the restroom, whether for number one or number two, he is to recite the blessing of “Asher Yatzar” alone, without reciting the blessing upon washing hands, even if his hands got dirty, and he wishes to study or pray right away”. Now what they are implying are two things - A. The blessing of “Asher Yatzar” is not to be recited only once a day, in the morning, like the rest of the morning blessings, even though there is no mention of relieving oneself in the blessing - but rather every time one uses the restroom, the blessing must be recited. This also comes to rule out the opinion of one of the early commentators, who is of the opinion that one is not required to recite the blessing after number one.",
"And the second thing: the Ra’ava”d is of the opinion that one must also recite the blessing for washing hands after using the restroom, being that he needs to now recite the blessing one makes after relieving himself, and it is forbidden to recite any blessingwithout first washing one’s hands - he must therefore recite the blessing one makes upon the required hand-washing, and there are some who hold that one must recite the blessing for washing hands only after number two. But there are many who disagree with this ruling - therefore the author of the Shulchan Aruch comes to teach us that one is never required to recite the blessing for washing hands, which is unlike the opinion of the Ro”sh, who holds that one must recite the blessing for washing hands, if one used the restroom before praying the afternoon prayer. Also, the Shulchan Aruch adds that one is not to recite the blessing for washing hands even if they became dirty, just as one does not recite that blessing even after washing one’s hands when dirty before the afternoon prayers, although he is required to wash his hands in that situation, being that the blessing for washing hands was established to be recited only once a day, in the morning. (And in the book “Artzot Hachaim” he writes at length that there are many who hold that one should recite the blessing for washing hands after using the restroom before the afternoon prayer. Now if a scholar wishes to do so, he may, however one should not instruct others to do so. Also, the Pri Megadim expresses uncertainty regarding a situation where there is an additional reason to be in doubt as to whether one must recite the blessing for washing hands - for example he wishes to eat a food dipped in a liquid. However in truth, there is nothing to ponder, and one would definitely not need to recite the blessing for washing hands...",
"It was already mentioned, that after using the restroom, one is to wash his hands and recite “Asher Yatzar”. Nevertheless, if one’s hands did not get dirty, he is not obligated to wash his hands, and if only one hand got dirty, he is only required to wash that hand. Nevertheless, the common practice is to wash hands regardless, as the Beit Yosef writes, that there is no reason to wash hands in such a case, aside from the fact that one is expected to follow the rules of cleanliness, as well as the proper conduct one is expected to do as preparation before showing honor to G-d - even though one is generally only required required to prepare himself before prayer -and not just any blessing, nevertheless, that rule applies to preparing oneself in general - such as wearing a belt etc., however when it comes to something disgusting, (such as using the restroom) one is expected to wash his hands even for the purpose of reciting a blessing. Now it happens to be that there are those who hold that one is required to wash his hands three times, and there are those who follow this ruling, however the Beit Yosef did not rule as such.",
"The Beit Yosef writes, that if one finished relieving himself, and then [before he got a chance to recite Asher Yatzar], he needed to relieve himself a second time - he must, in that case, recite the blessing twice. Now this is unlike a situation where one decided to stop eating, and then changed his mind, and decided to continue eating, which in such a case he would be required to recite a blessing once, being that unlike the case of relieving oneself, one can always decide to continue and eat more, however in the case of one who relieved himself a second time before he got a chance to recite a blessing after the first time, that case would be more similar to one who missed a prayer, which in that case he would need to recite a second prayer after the next time he prays. However there are many great scholars who do not accept this ruling, and that is the common practice. And furthermore, if one did not get a chance to recite the blessing after relieving oneself before he felt an urge to relieve himself again, he should not recite the blessing until he relieves himself for the second time. ",
"There is no set measurement of relieving oneself that is required in order for one to recite the blessing. If one is unsure as to whether he already recited the blessing or not, he should not recite it, because when in doubt, one does not recite a blessing. Now if one relieved himself twice, and he is unsure as to whether he recited the blessing, there may be reason to say that he should then recite the blessing, being that the Halacha may be like the Beit Yosef, who holds that he would need to recite a second blessing regardless, being that he relieved himself twice, however there are those who hold that one should not recite the blessing even in such a case. If one ate something which requires him to recite an after-blessing, and then he went to the restroom, he should first recite the blessing of “Asher Yatzar”, and only afterwards should he recite the blessing after food, being that the blessing of “Asher Yatzar” is generally recited more frequently than the after m-blessing for food. "
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Our Rabbi the Beit Yosef wrote: \"After one dons the Tallit — he should place the Tefillin, since we [only] go up in holiness.\" And people have questioned upon this ruling: \"It should the opposite since Tefillin are more holy, and we have established that anything that is holier than something else takes priority over that something else, and if so he should put on the Tefillin before the Tallit (Sha'agat Aryeh Chapter 28 and the Dagul Mervavah). But the words of our Rabbi the Beit Yosef are correct. That it is in Menachot (49b) that we conclude that commonality and holiness — are both equal in priority, and one can prioritize whichever he wants (between those two). And so the Rambam ruled at the end of Chapter 8 from Hilchot Tamidin, see there. And Tallit compared to Tefillin is more common, as it is worn also on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And so [the Beit Yosef] is saying: that since the two of them (Tallit and Tefillin) are equal in priority, thus from the side of \"[Only] going up in holiness\", that is to say, to elevate the body — therefore we put on the Tallit before the Tefillin. And so it is in the Zohar at the end of Parashat \"Bamidbar\" that the Tallit is donned before Tefillin, see there.",
"And in any case he wrote in paragraph 2: \"One who is careful to wear a Tallit Kattan — he should wear it and [then] place the Tefillin in his house, and he should walk to synagogue dressed in Tzitzit and crowned with Tefillin, and there he should wrap himself in the Tallit Gadol.\" That is to say: that the Zohar tells to be careful to come to synagogue crowned with Tzitzit and Tefillin, and it is not proper to walk from his house to synagogue in the Tallit Gadol. And how should one do this, if one must precede Tzitzit to Tefillin as I have written? Because of this he says that since he has upon him the Tallit Kattan — he is permitted to don the Tefillin without the Tallit Gadol, and walk to synagogue and there he should place the Tallit Gadol and he will find that he has fulfilled everything. And our Rabbi the Rem\"a wrote on this matter: \"And everyone practiced to wrap themselves even in the Tallit Gadol before and to make the blessing upon it, and after [putting on the Tallit] he places the Tefillin and walks to synagogue.\" And he is not arguing with our Rabbi the Beit Yosef. Rather, in his time the Jews lived amongst themselves and they could walk also in the Tallit Gadol to synagogue. And thus they didn't need to fulfill the words of the Zohar regarding the Tzitzit Kattan, since it is not the main [Tallit], rather they would wear the Tallit Gadol [which is the main Tallit] and the Tefillin and would walk t0 synagogue. Yet in our time and in our great sins it is impossible for us to do this at all. And we place both the Tallit and the Tefillin in synagogue.",
"And since it was explained in paragraph 1 that one should put on the Tzitzit before the Tefillin, therefore one should caution those who put the Tefillin purse with the Tallit in one purse, as is our practice, that they don't place the Tefillin purse above and closer to the opening of the purse than the Tallit, in order so that he will not touch the Tefillin first and he will have to place them before the Tallit. Since we do not pass up on the performance of Mitzvot. And even though the Tefillin are still in their purse and the reason of \"we do not pass up\" wouldn't really apply (Magen Avraham), in any case since the reason for placing the Tallit before the Tefillin is itself not so clear, and how much more so according to what we explained that they are technically equal in priority, that the Tallit is common and the Tefillin are holy, thus any touching to the Tefillin — one should precede them. And even if among the Tefillin one touches the Shel Rosh first, we aren't worried because of the reason of \"we do not pass up\" as will be explained, it is different there since it is a decree from the text to precede the Shel Yad as will be explained, what is not so regarding the Tallit and Tefillin (Turei Zahav).",
"But with what is explained in paragraph 2, that they place the Tefillin in their house and the tallit in the synagogue, with this there is certainly no worry even if he touches the Tallit first. Anyway he doesn't need to wrap himself in the Tallit in his house because since he didn't have intention to wear it here, the ruling before (of \"we don't pass up\") doesn't apply, as in chapter 168 that one must precede the blessing of \"Hamotzee\" to a bread made from wheat to bread made from barley. But this is when he wants to eat from the bread made from wheat, but when he doesn't want to eat [the wheat bread] — this rule doesn't apply. And it is so here too (Magen Avraham). And know that all this is only when one has before himself the Tallit and the Tefillin prepared, that we have investigated which one to precede the other. But when the Tefillin are prepared before him but the Tallit is not prepared — he shouldn't wait for the Tallit. Rather, he should place the Tefillin, and when the Tallit is brought to him he should wrap himself in it. ",
"It was already explained by the Zohar that it is a great thing to walk to synagogue wrapped in the Tallit and crowned in the Tefillin. And even if he has to go through disgusting alleyways — he is permitted to go there, as log as he covers the \"Shel Rosh\". And this idea is so great, that there were from the great [Rabbis] that ruled that one who was part of a group to go to synagogue before dawn for the saying of Tehillim in a group, and now wants to go back on it since he is unable to walk to synagogue in his Tallit and his Tefillin before dawn, he is permitted to go back on it and is exempt from penalty. And also the promise doesn't fall upon him since it is similar to accidental promises (Magen Avraham in the name of the Maharam from Lublin Chapter 37). And it was for this reason that the Arizal was never among the first ten at synagogue, since many came before dawn and he didn't want to go without the wrapping and crowning of the Tallit and the Tefillin (ibid.). But anyway, many great [Rabbis] argued on this, that before dawn since it is still not time for Tzitzit and Tefillin — we are not concerned [the walking to synagogue with Tallit and Tefillin doesn't apply]. And the warning of the Zohar [to walk to synagogue...] was not referring to this [before dawn] (Eliyah Rabbah and Nahar Shalom and Menachem Azaria). And anyway, annulment of his vow is certainly required (Magen Avraham ibid.) And the reason for the Arizal was not only for this reason, but also because he digestive problems, and thus had to go to the bathroom, and he wasn't able to come earlier. (Machatzit Ha'Shekel. And thus wrote the Magen Avraham on Paragraph 90, see there.)",
"And so was the Minhag of the Rosh Z\"l: He would wrap himself in the Tallit and would order(say) the [morning] blessings [up] until \"[God] crowns Israel with glory,\" and then he would place Tefillin. And he said this blessing since the Tefillin are called \"glory\", and it is nice to make that blessing immediately after the placing of Tefillin. So wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in his name. And it's not law, since in the Gemara the morning blessings were ordered about other things (Berachot 60b), and this blessing is about [not Tefillin, but rather about] putting on a hat, as I have written in Chapter 46. Rather since we are unable to order(say) the blessings, each one in its place [according to Berachot ibid.], we order(say) them together, either at home or in synagogue as will be explained there. Rather they taught us this because if a great man such as the Rosh Z\"l did so, certainly whoever is able according to his body and way to do so — he should do so. But it is not law.",
"Every Jewish man is obligated to make sure that there will be the Tefillin upon him during Kriyat Shema and Prayer (Amidah/Shemoneh Esreh). And anyone who says Kriyat Shema without Tefillin — it is as if he has testified falsely against himself, and as if he has sacrificed a sacrifice without the libations (Berachot 14b). That is to say: that the false testimony is that he says \"And you shall bind them [the Tefillin] as a sign upon your arm...\" — and he didn't bind them! And also the Kriyat Shema that he said only counts as half a Mitzvah, like one who sacrifices a sacrifice without the libations. And until when the Tefillin should be upon him will be explained at the end of this chapter, that they should be upon him until after \"Aleinu\", see there.",
"And know that even according to the Halachic authorities that explain that performance of Mitzvot don't need intention, anyway one certainly must know the main idea of the commandment and its core. And with Tefillin if one does not place intention to its main idea at all — he did not fulfill the commandment, and it is as if he did an action of nonsense. And thus one should have intention in their placing that that Holy One Blessed be [God] commanded us to place these four sections, that have in them the Oneness of God's name and the Exodus from Egypt, on the arm opposite the heart and upon the head opposite the brain, in order so that we will remember the miracles and wonders that God did for us. Since they tell of God's Oneness, and that God has the power and dominion in the upper realms and the lower realms. And through this one will strengthen his faith in the Blessed One, and trust God in all his things. And he will serve the Holy One Blessed be [God] with the soul that is in the brain, and also the heart that is the center of desire and thought. And through this he will remember the Creator, and will lessen his [superfluous] pleasures, and will understand that he was created only for the purpose to do the will of the Blessed One. And he will send to God his wishes and all his needs. And know that from these four sections we were only commanded to read two of the sections: \"Shema\", and \"Ve'Haya Im Shamoah\". But \"Kadesh\", and \"Ve'haya Ki Yaviacha\" — we do not need to read. And so they learned out in Sifrei on the verse \"Ve'Shinantem Le'vanecha (And you shall teach your children)\": \"Shema\" \"Ve'haya Im Shamoah\" [that it mentions \"And you shall teach...\"] — shall be taught [i.e. read], but not \"Kadesh\" and \"Ki Yaviacha\" [that it is not mentioned \"And you shall teach...\"] shall not be taught [i.e. not need be read]. And you will find among the great [Rabbis] that wrote that one should say also the latter two sections (see Magen Avraham) — but this is not meant to be an obligation nor a commandment, but rather extra love [for God] as is the trait of the righteous. And they only came to teach that the intention [of that one need not read the latter sections] is not to say that it is forbidden but rather that one doesn't have the obligation to read them. And one who wishes to do so should read them too, and we do not protest. ",
"One places the Shel Yad first, and after that the Shel Rosh. And even if one touches the Shel Rosh first — he is forced to pass on it, even though we don't pass up on the performance of Mitzvot, and he should take the Shel Yad and place it on his arm, and afterwards should take the Shel Rosh and place it on his head. And the reason is because it is written: \"And they shall be a Totafot between your eyes\", and we learn out (Menachot 36a) from the language of \"they\" since it is in the plural (Rashi), that all the time that it [the Shel Rosh] is \"between your eyes\" — there should be two [both the Shel Rosh and the Shel Yad]. And even though that if one doesn't have the Shel Yad, or he is unable to place the Shel Yad, he [still] places the Shel Rosh alone as I have written in Chapter 26 — this is because they are two Mitzvot, and of course he is obligated to fulfill whatever he can. But when he has both [and can place both] — it is a decree of the Torah to place the Shel Rosh after the Shel Yad, and thus we are not concerned with \"we do not pass up on the performance of Mitzvot\". And thus Our Rabbis of Blessed Memory said (Yoma 33a) that one should be careful to not touch the Shel Rosh first, so that he will not have to pass up on the performance of the Mitzvah.",
"And regarding blessings [on the Tefillin] there is a dispute among the Rabbis. There are those from our rabbis who ruled that one should make one single blessing upon both of them. And there are those who ruled that one should make two blessings: On the Shel Yad, \"To place the Tefillin\" and on the Shel Rosh, \"About the Mitzvah of Tefillin\". And the Ashkenazim follow that latter opinion, and the Sefardim mke one blessing, like the first opinion. And it is simple in the Gemara in Menachot (36a) that: If one didn't converse between the [placing of the] Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh — makes one blessing. [If he] conversed — makes two blessings. This implies that there is one blessing upon both, and so explains Rashi. However, it is simple in the Gemara of Berachot (60b) that says: When one places the Tefillin upon his arm, he should say, \"Blessed...to place...\", when he places [the Tefillin] upon his head he should say \"Blessed...about the Mitzvah...\" — it is clear that he needs two blessings[!] And so it is in the Yerushalmi, and in the Midrash Tanchuma at the end of Parashat \"Bo\", see there. And so ruled Rabbeinu Tam, and explained that [what is written] in Menachot, that \"if he converses — he makes two blessings\" on the Shel Rosh, alone. And Rashi would explain that the blessings [found in the Gemara Berachot 60b] are when he conversed. And the Rif and the Rambam and the Rashba ruled like Rashi. And the Rosh and the Tur ruled like Rabbeinu Tam. (And it is not clear according to Rabbeinu Tam regarding the \"if he conversed — he makes two blessings\" upon the Shel Rosh, yet how can one make two blessings upon one Mitzvah? And the Maharal from Prague was already awakened to this matter which was brought down in the Bach, and he wrote that one should move around the Shel Yad [when saying one of the two blessings had he conversed], and thus one of the blessings would be upon the Shel Yad [thus it would not be two blessings on one Mitzvah, but rather one on each Tefillin]. And according to this when he has only the Shel Rosh — he should only make one blessing, see there. But this is not implied from Tosfot and the Rosh, but it is implied from the Magen Avraham. And I have also found in the Or Zarua Gadol Chapter 582 in the name of the Geonim that technically each Tefillin would require two blessings: \"to place\" and \"about the Mitzvah of\", see there. And it seems to me that \"to place\" is the blessing upon the Mitzvah, and \"about the Mitzvah of\" is the blessing of gratitude that God merited us to make a sign between God and us. And this is related to the Shel Rosh, like they learned out (Menachot 35b) on the verse \"they will all see...that the name of God is called upon you and they will be in awe of you\" — this is [referring to] the Tefillin Shel Rosh. And according to this it is simple. And if you investigate you will find that it is simple.)",
"And our Rabbi the Rem\"a wrote, \"It is the general custom of Ashkenazi Jews to make two blessings. And it is good to always say after the second blessing 'May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever'.\" This is because of the doubt of perhaps a blessing (the second blessing) made in vain, as I have written in chapter 206 that when someone says the Name of Heaven in vain he should say \"May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever\", see there. And it is not clear at all either way: If the matter is not clear to us [if the second blessing might be a blessing in vain], that therefore we say \"May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever\", why would we make [the] second blessing? We should make one blessing, as is the law with all doubts about blessings (there is a rule, \"if there is a doubt regarding blessings, one must be lenient\", and thus if there is a doubt about whether one should make a blessing one should not make the blessing). And if the matter is clear to us [that the second blessing is not in vain], then why should we say \"May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever\"? And the truth is that the Levush didn't mention it [saying, \"May the Honored Name...\"]. (And also the Bach doubted this matter, and the Ma'adanei Yom Tov wrote that it is the proper thing to say. And it needs further investigation.) And simply we could say that the Ashkenazi Jews ruled to make two blessings, and only our Rabbi the Rem\"a was unclear about this matter. And he couldn't change the custom [of saying two blessings] and therefore he ruled this way [to say, \"May the Honored Name...\"]. And according to this, someone whose heart hurts him can make one blessing (since it would be too much effort to make two). And we have heard that some Great [Rabbis] would make an effort to answer \"Amen\" between the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh, and they would then consider this an interruption [so that they could fulfill the idea of] making a blessing on the Shel Rosh according to all opinions. (And in the Beit Yosef he was surprised at the Mahari Ben Chaviv who practiced [to say \"About the Mitzvah of\"], since who would force himself to enter into a doubt of a blessing in vain and save himself with the saying of, \"May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever\"? See there.)",
"And according to my humble opinion, it seems that the saying of \"May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever\" is not for the reason of doubt of blessing, rather because of a different reason. And even though the Halachic Authorities wrote that it is for this reason, in any case it seems to me that the custom arises from a different reason: That we already questioned how can one make two blessings on one thing? And also there have been who have challenged on the core of the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, since we taught in a Tosefta in Brachot chapter 6, and so wrote the Rambam in the first chapter of Ma'asrot, that if one separates Teruma, and Terumat Ma'aser, and Ma'aser Sheni [together] as one — he makes one blessing upon all of them. And if so, how can they establish two blessings upon the two Tefillin [when they are being performed together as one Mitzvah]? (The Gra. And the suggested answer of the Artzot Chayim is surprising, see there.)",
"",
"In the word \"Tefillin\" the Lamed (Hebrew letter: ל) is Dagush (Has a dot in it: לּ, in Hebrew grammar, when there is a dot in a letter other than the letters of בג״ד כפ״ת, it is drawn out), since the Shoresh (root) of the word is Pallel (פ.ל.ל.) as I have written in the name of the Tur. And it should theoretically be written with two Lameds (It is written תפילין when it should theoretically be written תפיללין in order to match up with the root of the word), but the Dagush (the dot in the letter) fills in the missing letter, as is known. And thus when one says \"To place the Tefillin\", and so with \"About the Mitzvah of Tefillin\" — he should draw out the Lamed (ל) as is the way with Dagush-es. And he should say \"להניח - Le'Honeach (To place)\" with the Hey (Hebrew letter: ה) pronounced with a Kamatz (vowel underneath a letter, pronounced by Ashkenazim \"o\" as in \"off\") since it is the language of placing - on the hand - like \"to place (Le'Honiach) a blessing upon your house\" (Ezekiel 44:30), and not with a Patach (vowel underneath a letter: אַ, pronounced as \"o\" as in \"octagon\") which is the language of abandonment (meaning that the word \"Le'Haniach\" means abandonment), like \"leave (Hanichu) your one brother with me\" (Genesis 42:33) with a Makaf (a dash under the letter: a Patach). And \"על מצות - Al Mitzvat (About the Mitzvah of)\" with a Patach underneath the Vav (Hebrew letter: ו), that since it is only said upon the Shel Rosh it must be in the singular (Thus, it is \"Al Mitzvat\" as in \"another\", which would be the singular, as opposed to Al Mitzvot, as in \"ode\", which would be the plural). And even if it would be said that the blessing is upon both [of the Tefillin], isn't it written: \"The commandment (singular, Mitzvat) of Hashem is clear and lights up the eyes\", this is referring to all the commandments [of the Torah]. And in any case the use of a Patach is singular language (Magen Avraham), that all the commandments are [really] one Mitzvah, meaning: that the Holy One, Blessed be [God] commanded us. And there are those who say \"Al Mitzvot\" with a Cholam (Hebrew vowel above a letter and to the left or above a Vav: רֹ or וֹ, making the \"o\" sound as in \"ode\", which is thus plural) but when they have only the Shel Rosh they say it with the Patach, because [they only have] the singular [Shel Rosh] (Turei Zahav in the name of his brother). And the main custom is like the first one (\"Al Mitzvat\" with a Patach), and so ruled the Great Achronim (Eliyah Rabbah, and the Graz, and Levushei Srad, and the Derech Ha'Chayim).",
"It is known that with all Mitzvot, one must make the blessing \"Passing over doing them\", meaning: before doing them, and immediately before doing them. And therefore one should not make the blessing on the Shel Yad [\"Le'Honiach Tefillin (To place the Tefillin)\"] before he places it upon his bicep, that being the place for the placing of the Tefillin as I have written in chapter 27, because then [the blessing] would not be immediate the tying which is the actual action of the Mitzvah, and [one should not make the blessing] after the tying since we need [the blessing to] \"Pass over doing them\". Rather, one should place the [Tefillin Shel Yad] upon his bicep, and hold the strap in his right hand (since he is putting the Tefillin on his left arm. If he was putting his Tefillin on his right arm, he would hold the strap in his left hand) and make the blessing, and immediately tighten [the strap] as that is the actual tying of the Mitzvah. And so one should do with the Shel Rosh — he should make the blessing before he tightens it, and this is after the placing upon the head and before the tightening (Magen Avraham). And according to this one must be careful not to expose his head (Pri Magdim), and one should place his Tallit over his head (so that his head is covered when he makes the blessing). And this is difficult, specifically for young lads who don't have a Tallit, of course. And thus there are those who practice to hold the Shel ROsh beside the head and make the blessing, and then immediately place it upon his head, since this is also [considered] immediate to the action. And know that all this is optimal. But sub-optimally, when one didn't make the blessing before [placing the Tefillin and tightening it] — he should make the blessing after this, since [the Tefillin] is placed for a long time (Pri Magdim). And this is similar to someone who didn't say \"Hamotzee (the blessing on bread)\" before he began eating, he should make the blessing in the middle of the meal. And that is the law here, however one must shift the Tefillin when he is making the blessing since the shifting is kind of like placing.",
"Optimally, it is forbidden to interrupt in any form of speaking between [the placing of] the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh. And if one did speak between — he goes back and makes the blessing of \"About the Mitzvah of Tefillin\" on the Shel Rosh. And this is for those who make only one blessing on both of them. For those who make two blessings — he should make two blessings upon the Shel Rosh [if he interrupted], as was explained. And this is what he should do: He should shift the Shel Yad and tighten the tie and make both blessings on the Shel Rosh, since it will be like one [blessing] on the Shel Yad because of the shifting, and one [blessing] on the Shel Rosh (Magen Avraham in the name of the Ran, see there). And this is because of the surprising matter of making two blessings on one thing. And we already explained this with the support of Heaven.",
"And the fact that conversation is considered an interruption, this is only when one conversed not for the need of the Tefillin. But if one conversed for the need of the Tefillin, even though optimally he should refrain from doing this if it's not something that is pertinent that one needs to interrupt for the need of Tefillin — he does not need to make another blessing, since any conversation that is for the need of the Mitzvah that one is involved in is not considered an interruption. And if one hears Kaddish or Kedusha when he is in between [the placing of] the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh, our Rabbi the Beit Yosef wrote in paragraph 10 that \"he should not interrupt to answer with them. Rather he should be silent and listen and intend to what they are saying.\" Since regarding the matter of answering Kedusha and Kaddish and \"Barchu\", [the rule of] one who listens [and intends] is like one who is answering/saying [the Kedusha...], but regarding the idea of interruption it is not considered an interruption. But if one did answer Kaddish..., there are those who say that he should go back and make another blessing on the Shel Rosh (Magen Avraham). And there are those who say that one need not go back and make another blessing, that since he has the obligation regarding this matter [to answer] – it is no worse than conversing for the need of the Tefillin (Turei Zahav). And this seems to be the prominent view. (And from the language of the Shulchan Aruch it implies that one doesn't need to interrupt in order to answer \"Amen\" even in a regular hearing [that is not between Tefillin]. But perhaps he just didn't mention this, since he also didn't mention \"Barchu\". And if you investigate you will find that it is simple.)",
"Something that is understood by all is that when one says the blessing of \"To place\", this applies also to the Shel Rosh, and this is not necessary [to point out] for those who only say one blessing, but even to those who say two blessings, in any case the blessing of \"to place\" applies to the Shel Rosh as well. And thus one should limit the interruption as much as possible. And thus our rabbi the Beit Yosef wrote in paragraph 11 that \"After one binds the Shel Yad upon the arm — he should place the Shel Rosh before he wraps the strap around the arm.\" And the Tur wrote that the Rosh Z\"l practiced this way, even though he held that we make two blessings (the Beit Yosef rules Sephardic so he only said one blessing). But in any event we do not practice so. And it was written that the Arizal would wrap the wraps and afterwards place the Shel Rosh, even though he would, Z\"l, make only one blessing. And simply one can explain the reason: That since the wraps one is required to do, they are also considered part of the placing of the Tefillin, and thus are not an interruption. Further, that it is known that if one does not wrap the wraps the tie of the Shel Yad will loosen, and it will be that the Shel Rosh will be placed before the Shel Yad. Besides these, they have written that there are hidden reasons for this as well (see Turei Zahav, and Magen Avraham). And so is the custom and one should not change it. ",
"And so one should not take the Shel Rosh out of the case until he places the Shel Yad. And even if they are both before him outside of the case — he shouldn't fix the Shel Rosh to prepare to place the Shel Rosh before the he places the Shel Yad, that if he does this since he is dealing with the Shel Rosh and then places it [back on the table], and then he places [on his arm] the Shel Yad first (as one has to do, that the Shel Yad comes first) — behold, he is passing on the performance of a Mitzvah, and we don't pass on the performance of a Mitzvah, as I have written. And thus, we practice to place both of them in one case, and we place the Shel Rosh on the right and the Shel Yad on the left. And we always do this. That way, one can open the case and turn to the left and take the Shel Yad and place it, and then afterwards take the Shel Rosh from the case and place it on his head. (One can do this every time because he will remember every time that the Shel Yad is on the left.) And specifically he should be strict with himself. But if someone else takes his Shel Rosh out first and prepares it before the person who is going to place the Tefillin — one need not be strict.",
"",
"The Tur wrote that, \"Every [time] that one places [the Tefillin] in the day — he makes a blessing. Even if they are removed from their place [on their own], and he shifts them to return them to their place — he must make a blessing.\" [The m]eaning [of the second part is]: [the Tur] didn't need to mention that when he takes them off purposefully and places them back on after some time that he must make a blessing, rather [he is coming to teach that] even if they were only removed from their place on their own, and he shifted them back to their place immediately — he must make the blessing. And it isn't because of the small interruption of time, since he explained above in Chapter 8 (?????) — he doesn't make another blessing, see there. Rather, since they are removed without intention, thus a person is obligated to make another blessing, even if [he returned them] immediately. And [the first part of the above Tur], that a person is obligated to make a blessing every [time] that he places them, this is when he removed them with the intention to not wear them [again], or to wear them after a long time. And that [the Tur said] \"even [if they are removed...]\", is because if they are removed by themselves it is considered as a long time even if it was only for a short time. (?????)",
"And according to the opinion of the Tur, one who removes his Tefillin to go to the bathroom, with the intention to place them immediately upon returning — one doesn't need to make a[nother] blessing. But our Rabbi the Beit Yosef in paragraph 12 disagrees, as he wrote: \"If they are removed from their place...— one needs to make the blessing. If one moved them from their place with the intention to return them [to their place] immediately — one needs to make a blessing.\" Since he thinks that any [time] they are removed from their place, whether intentionally or not, whether with the intention to return them immediately or not — he needs to make a blessing. And about this our Rabbi the Rem\"a wrote: \"There are those who say not to make the blessing, and so is practiced,\" and this is about one who moves them from their place with the intention to return them immediately, like the opinion of the Tur, as we have explained. And we practice this way. And further than this: even if they are removed from their place on their own — we don't practice to make a blessing. And I don't know the reason, since everyone agrees that one should make the blessing. And there are those who have written that the reason is that during the time of prayer simply one doesn't take his mind off of them, and [the Tefillin being removed on their own] is like one took them off in order to return them (Magen Avraham in the name of the Shelah)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"One forgot, and \"used his bed\" in tefillin. He should not grab them by the straps, much less by the tefillin themselves, until he has washed his hands. For the hands are \"busybodies\" and he certainly touched a place that requires hand washing. And when he washes his hands, he should take them off until he has washed off the emission, and then he is permitted to wear them again, for someone who is impure because of a seminal emission is permitted to wear tefillin. And if he sleeps in tefillin and has an emission, he should not grab them by the boxes. Rather, he should grab them by the straps and take them off until he has washed the emission off himself and washed his hands. Our master, the Beit Yosef wrote in subsections 8: \"One who goes in to an established meal should remove them and set them on the table until the time for the blessing (grace after meals), and then put them on again. However one who is eating a snack need not remove them.\" For it is permitted to eat a snack in tefillin. This is according to their custom, for they would go the whole day in their tefillin, but not for us. It seems to me that by us, it is not correct even to eat a casual meal in tefillin."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"In Talmudic times, each person would say all the morning blessings in their home, since they were holy and scrupulous even in their sleep not to let their hands touch their intimate places. But now it is impossible to recite these blessings at home individually, since our hands are unclean. It is possible, of course, to clean our hands by wiping them on the wall or something else as soon as we awake - but since many people are ignorant of this, and don't even know the blessings - it is customary to recite them all at the synagogue and have the people answer Amen! after each one. We say these blessings at home after netilat yadayim, and after the appropriate cleansing. But we do not say each blessing in its place, for a number of reasons."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"One must be careful not to create a pause by speaking between \"Barukh She-'Amar\" until the end of the Amidah. Even for the sake of a mitzvah one should not stop between \"Barukh She-'Amar\" and \"Yishtabach\". And thus one should not stop between \"Yishtabach\" and \"Yotsér 'Or\"; this is illuminated in Siman 54. Our teacher the Bét Yosef wrote in Se'if 5: between these psalms we may ask after those honored in our community and respond to a greeting from any person. And in the middle of a psalm we may ask after those revered in our community and respond to those honored. Until here is [the Bét Yosef's] teaching, and the Tur wrote likewise. The explanation for \"after those revered\" and \"honored\" is illumnated in Siman 66. P'suké D'Zimrah is like the blessings of the recitation of Shema, and thus it is forbidden to answer \"amén\" in the middle of a chapter [or a particular psalm]. However, in the writings of the AR\"I, may his memory be blessed, he ruled that one may interrupt to answer \"Amen\" (see Magén Avraham, Se'if Katan 3), and even in the middle of the blessing \"Barukh She-'Amar\" it is permissible to answer \"Amén\" (same). It seems to me that the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh agree with regard to \"amén\", since \"amen\" does not diminish from all the songs and praises. Rather because he does not intend himself to pause with ordinary speaking, like within the blessings of the recitation of Shema, it does not apply to responding \"amén\". And this is how we behave. However, to respond \"barukh hu uvarukh shemo\" -- [this is forbidden], since it is not based in law at all."
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"The Kaddish is great and awesome praise that the Men of the Great Assembly fixed after the destruction of the First Temple. It is a prayer about the desecration of the Blessed Name from the destruction of the Sanctuary, the decimation of the Holy Land, and the dispersion of Israel to the 4 corners of the earth. We pray 'let the Blessed name be magnified and sanctified' as the prophet said: \"I will make myself greater and more sanctified and be known to the nations, and they will know that I am Hashem.\" As R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot, once a Bat Kol was heard cooing like a dove and saying: 'Oy to the children, that because of their sins, I destroyed My house, and burned my temple, and exiled them...' And Eliahu the prophet said to him, that three times each day a Bat Kol like this is heard. And further, at the time Israel enters its synagogues and study halls, and they answer 'amen! yehei shmei raba...amen ! May His great Name be blessed', the Holy One of Blessing nods his head and says, 'happy is the King who is praised like this in His house. What it is to be a Father who exiled His children? And woe to the children who were exiled from the table of their Father.' And because of its elevated status, it was decreed that it [the Kaddish] would be recited in Aramaic, because in Babylonia they spoke this language. And thus, so that everyone would understand it, [the Kaddish] was established in the spoken tongue. And, additionally, there are hidden reasons for this.",
"R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot that one time a Divine Voice was heard ",
"R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot that one time a Divine Voice was heard ",
"R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot that one time a Divine Voice was heard "
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"13. The Brakha of \"Yotzeir,\" one should say quietly along with the shaliach tzibbur. One shouldn't rely on hearing it from the shaliach tzibbur and just answering \"Amen,\" for two reasons: first, because in the Shilhi, Rosh Hashanah they said that the shaliach tzibbur only discharges the obligation of one who is not an expert (and able to pray for themselves) and not one who an expert; and further, because even if we say that he may also fulfill the obligation of an expert, as we will explain, nonetheless, perhaps one will not hear well, and will miss some words by listening and will not fulfill the obligation. Therefore, it is better to say it oneself with the shaliach tzibbur. The shaliach tzibbur should say it out loud, and the individual should say it quietly and not out loud, for if he also says it out loud, they won't be able to hear the voice of the shaliach tzibbur, for two voices together are not heard. This cannot be, for the shaliach tzibbur needs to fulfill the obligation of those who are not expert. And one should complete the brakha before the shaliach tzibbur in order to answer \"Amen,\" to the brakha of the shaliach tzibbur, for in the middle it is forbidden to interrupt. It seems to me that this is when the shaliach tzibbur speaks at a moderate pace. However, if he rushes, it is better to say it at a moderate pace and not answer \"Amen,\" for the Amein is not absolutely necessary for one who is saying it on his own, and he is not fulfilling his obligation through the blessing of the shaliach tzibbur. So, too, with the rest of the berakhot of Shacharit and Arvit. And this is the meaning of the Tur. (And this is the explanation of the words of the Shulchan Arukh in clause 4, examine it and it will be clear)."
],
[
"",
"",
"It is correct that when you say \"and chose us\" to remember standing at Mt. Sinai , concerning 'chose us\", as it is written \"lest you forget the things....the day you stood before the Eternal Your God at Horeb(Deuteronomy 4:9).\" And when you say, \"Your great name, \" remember the incident of Amalek that The Name is not whole until one wipes out the descendants of Amalek, as it is written, \"Remember what Amalek did to you ...\"(Deuteronomy 25:16)\" And when you say, \"To acknowledge You\" remember that the mouth was created to acknowledge Him who is blessed and not to speak words of gossip. And remember the incident of Miriam, as it is written, \"Remember what the Eternal your God did to Miriam...(Deuteronomy 24:8)\" And when you say \"In love\" remember concerning what is written, \"Remember how you provoked the Eternal your God in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:7).\" And when you read, \"And when you remember all of God's commandments\", remember that Shabbat is equal to all the commandments, as it is written, \" Remember the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8).\" As it is said, never forget the Sabbath day. And like Amram of blessed memory: From one Sabbath to the next Sabbath. And therefore in the Psalm of the day we read: \"This is the first day of the Sabbath.....\" And when we say, \"from the four corners of the earth,\" place the corners of the tallit that are upon his shoulders to fall downward. (Magen Avraham, small paragraph, Bet, and we are not concerned with this. See Pri Etz Chayim, Gate of the Recitation of the Shma, Chapter 3, and you will understand what we are not accustomed to. And be precise and find easy.) "
],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"The authors of the Shulchan Arukh wrote that if one is reciting individually, one should focus on the 15 vavs in the blessing \"Emet v'yatziv,\" which equal 90. These correspond to three Tetragrammatons, for each name equals 26, plus four letters equals 30. Another reason is that the 15 vavs equal 90, and the recitation counts as one, which makes 91, which is the value of the Name as it is read and as it is written. It's as if you said \"Hashem Lord, True.\" There are those who write that one who recites the Shema alone should say \"El Melekh Ne'eman Shema Yisrael.\" For these three words make the total 248, and this is in place of the \"Amein\" that one would have said after the blessing \"who chooses his people Israel with love,\" and this is the custom. Nonetheless, when one is reciting with the shaliach tzibbur, one shouldn't say \"El Melekh Ne'eman,\" but should only say \"Amen\" after the shaliach tzibbur, when he finishes the brakha. This is the custom and it is correct. End quote. There are some among the great authorities who grumble a lot about interrupting with \"El Melekh Ne'eman even when reciting individually (Magen Avraham clause 4, in the name of the Maharshal), and we don't have the custom to say this. There are those who also repeat \"Hashem Elokeikhem Emet\" when reciting individually, and I do't know what they base this. It would be better to repeat the words \"Etkhem Mei'eretz Mitzrayim\" which don't contain a divine name, and I have seen some doing this. "
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"They taught in beginning of Chapter Two of the Mishnah Berakhot, that in the middle of the chapter, one may greet out of awe and answer out of honor, and in between the chapters, one may greet out of honor and may answer the greeting of any person. That is that when one is in the middle of the berakha of \"Yozeir\" or of \"Ahavah Rabba,\" or in the middle of one of the sections of the Shema, or in the middle of the blessing after the recitation of Shema, and a man whom he is obligated to honor passes in front of him, nonetheless he shouldn't greet him, but if this man greets him, he answers his greeting. However, if a man whom it would be appropriate to be in awe passes in front of him, then he may greet him and all the more so, answer. However, between the sections, for instance between \"Yotzeir\" and \"Ahava Rabba\" and between \"Ahavah and Shema\" and between \"Shema and \"Vehaya Im Shamoa\" and between \"Vehayah and Vayomer,\" he may greet even a man whom he is only obligated to honor, but it is permitted to answer anyone. And there is a debate concerning who is \"because of honor\" and who is \"because of awe\"",
"Behold, Rashi explains \"because of honor,\" a person who is honored, that it would be appropriate to greet them first. And \"becuase of awe,\" this is a person of whom one is afraid lest he kill him. The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah and in composition, explains \"because of awe\" like Rashi. However, he explains \"because of honor\" as a person whom one is obligated to honor, such as one's father or rabbi. And the Rosh and the Rashba raise a difficulty with their explanation of \"because of awe,\" that if they is any concern of murder, it's obvious [that one is allowed to interrupt] and what is the Mishnah coming to teach us? Doesn't saving a life take precedence over everything else?! Therefore the explanation of \"becuase of awe\" is for instance, his fatehr or his rabbi, whom he is obligated to revere, and the explanation of \"because of honor\" is an honorable person, as Rashi explained. The Tur and the Shulchan Arukh wrote this in paragraph 1. And our master, the Beit Yosef expands \"because of awe\" to include one who is greater than him in wisdom. This is surprising, for the Rashba wrote explicitly that this is in the category of \"because of honor,\" unless he meant one of the great sage of the generation. For thus writes the Trumat HaDeshen (Ch. 135) that one must be in awe of a great sage who is exceedingly wise."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"...All those who are exempt from the obligation of reciting the Shema - those who are involved in fulfilling a commandment or are concerned with fulfilling a commandment, and those who are dealing with a dead body - are exempt from the obligation to pray. There is one aspect of the obligation of prayer that is more lenient in exempting than the obligation of reading the Shema, as the rabbis said in the Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter: \"Those carrying the coffin..., those who are still needed to carry the coffin are exempt, and those who are no longer needed to carry it are obligated. But both are exempt from the obligation to pray.\" The reason is, for those who hold that the obligation to pray is rabbinic, it is simple: The obligation to recite the Shema is from the Torah, while the obligation to pray is rabbinic. And for those who hold the obligation to pray is from the Torah, it is because prayer requires one to stand, and they do not have time to do so; though this is not the case regarding the recitation of the Shema - they can say it all while they walk, except for the first verse (Tosafot R\"Y)",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"And this is definitely true that according to Rashi, women are required to pray three times a day, the same way men are obligated, since according to him, there is no difference in Rabbinical law [regarding prayer] between a time-bound (which women are mostly exempt from Biblically) and a non-time-bound obligation. Tosfot would opine similarly, since according to their view, the Talmud explicitly states: although [prayer is] a time-bound obligation, nonetheless, since [the drive to pray stems from a universal human tendency] to seek [G-d's] mercy, the Rabbis obligated them, and naturally, they are obligated the same way men are. However, according to Rif and the Rambam, whose text [of the Talmud] does not include the reasoning that [the obligation to pray stems from a universal human tendency] to seek [G-d's] mercy, rather, argue that [women] are obligated Biblically [in prayer] since it is not a time-bound commandment, would naturally say that [women] are only required [to pray] once daily and [can choose any words they desire express prayer] (lit. \"in any textual version\"). It is impossible to say that the Rabbinic decree to pray three times daily and in [their obligated] time applies to [women] as well, for if that were so, why would the Talmud [rhetorically] reply \"But that is obvious?!\" (to the Mishna's statement that women are obligated in prayer, See Aruch HaShulchan : Chelek 1 : Siman 106 : 5)? [That rhetorical question is not logically sensible since the Mishna's statement is not at all obvious] rather it teaches us a great deal! Really, what I previously wrote is the correct way [to explain the matter]."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"Know that it is obvious that our sages, their memory for a blessing, only allowed adding to the Shemoneh Esrei temporarily as the occasion required it. However, to add a regular, fixed prayer in the Shemoneh Esrei is an excessively arrogant and disrespectful [act] against the Men of the Great Assembly [who composed the Shemoneh Esrei]. And regarding this every Torah scholar agrees, as do all in whom the fear of G-d is in their midst. Accordingly, one should cry out against the publishers who have added in the prayer books in \"Hear our voices\" a fixed prayer: \"Please G-d, I have sinned...\" \"You are the One who feeds and sustains...\". Many of the commoners say this [insertion] regularly like all the prayer of Shemoneh Esrei\", and my heart is sick upon me over this act. I have heard that one of the leaders of the past generation [protested] loudly over this. However, because of our many sins, \"the world has been given over to fools\" (see Sanhedrin 46b), and the publishers do whatever they want and we don't have the ability to [successfully] object. [Regarding] this that they cite from the Zohar that it is good to request regularly regarding one's sustenance even if one is wealthy, or to confess one's sins (Magen Avraham 1), this is indeed the case, but not to make a fixed formulation in the middle of the prayers of the Men of the Great Assembly. And if he wants to he can say them after the [Shemoneh Esrei] prayer, after [he says the completing verse] \"May they find favor...\" (Psalms 19:15), and [then] who would protest [his doing this]? The [sages] have already said in the Talmud that after the [Shemoneh Esrei] prayer one can say even like the [lengthy] prayer order of Yom Kippur."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"After “U’Va L’Tzion” the leader says the Kaddish “Titkabel” (the added part starting from Titkabel), that ends the Tefillah. However, we have the practice to say afterwards the great praise of “Aleinu L’Shabei’ach,” that the early generations said that Yehoshua Bin Nun established it when he conquered Jericho. And the Arizal strongly suggested to say it after every Tefillah, out loud, standing, and with joy. And one should bow at the words “Va’Anachnu Kor’im (And we bend our knees).” And our Rabbi the Rema cautioned “to say it with intention in the previous chapter. And one should pause slightly before the words “ Va’Anachnu Kor’im (And we bend our knees)” (in order that it will not sound as if what we are saying falls on the previous words, God forbid). And we say the mourner’s Kaddish after “Aleinu.” And even if there is no mourner in the Shul at the time, one who does not have parents should recite it. Even one who has parents can recite [the Kaddish] if his parents are not strict [about not saying Kaddish while they are alive].” [This is because] this last Kaddish has a great purpose to fulfill four Kaddishes at Shacharit. And through saying “Aleinu” we strengthen our faith, [and our belief that] there is no power besides [God], blessed be [God], and the hope to fix the world in the Kingdom of God (see the Ba”ch). And some say “V’Chisei Ch’vodo BaShamayim MiMa’al ([God’s] Throne of Honor is in the Heavens on high).” And there are some who say “U’Moshav Yekaro ([God’s] Seat of Glory) [etc.]” [instead], and the Tur wrote that this is indeed the version of the Sefer HaYecholot, see there. Yet anyway we say “V’Chisei Ch’vodo ([God’s] Throne of Honor [etc.]” for the reason that is known to us.\n"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Synagogues and study halls have great holiness since we pray in them and learn in them Torah. These locations have a reflection of the sanctity of the Temple. Our wise ones of blessed memory said, \"And these will be small Temples\" (Megilah 29a)-these are the Synagogues and study halls. And this that is written, \"O Lord, You have been our dwelling place throughout all generations\"(Psalms 90:1)- these are the Synagogues and study halls. Even in the time of the destruction [of the Temple], they still have sanctity as it is written, \"and I will desolate your sanctuaries\" (Lev. 26:31)-\"They are still sanctuaries even when they are desolate\" (Megilah 28a). Therefore, Synagogues and study halls are not treated with lightheartedness, for example, with games, humor and small talk. The Arizal (R' Issac Luria) was very careful to only speak words of prayer in the Synagogue. Even words of rebuke should not be spoken, least it lead to the discussion of mundane matters. (Magen Avraham Subsection 3). ",
"We do not eat and we do not drink in them, even a temporary (short) consumption. We do not get dressed in them and we do not travel through them. We do not use them to take shelter from the heat when it is hot outside or from the rain when it is raining. Learned ones and their students are allowed to eat in them in urgent situations. Some say that they can eat in a study hall, even if the situation is not urgent, since for most of the day, they will be there to learn anyway. If so [if they would have to leave], this would be a waste of [ time that could be spent learning] Torah when they would have to step out of there to eat. However, to take shelter there from the rain or from the heat or cold is still prohibited, even for a learned person. Rather, he would have to learn there, or in a Synagogue, he would have to pray there (Magen Avraham subsection 2). There is in the Yerushalmi that a learned person is allowed lodge in a study hall (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And like this it sounds like in Pesachim (Pesachim 100a). At seems that guests can eat in the study hall. However, in truth, the Tosfos write there that this is referring to the rooms next to the Synagogue, see there. (Refer to the Ta\"z subsection 1. His words are puzzling. In addition, the Ramban did not write this, just because of a condition, see there.)",
"And one should not engage in financial calculations inside of a synagogue or beit midrash unless they are calculations that pertain to a mitzvah, such as calculations of a tzedakah fund or for redeeming captives etc. And there should be no eulogizing in a synagogue unless it is a eulogy for a great person. Or, if the eulogy is relevant for an influential resident of the city such that many residents fo the city will gather to pay tribute to the deceased and the entire community will gather in honor of the bereaved relative...",
"And what should one do if one needs to enter into a synagogue or beit midrash, for example to call someone from there etc.? One should enter and then recite a few words of scripture or some halakhah and only then call to one's friend so that it does not appear as though one entered the sacred space for his own mundane purposes. And if the individual does not know how to recite scripture or learn a halakhah, he can turn to a child and say \"read for me the verse that you are studying now.\" Or, he can wait a few moments in the synagogue or beit midrash for merely sitting there is also considered a mitzvah as it says \"happy or those who dwell in your home.\" And then the person can call to whomever he wishes. And how long should he sit under these circumstances? Enough time to walk from one entryway to another as I wrote above in Siman 90. And one does not have to sit for standing is the same and \"yeshiva\" which literally means sitting here means being detained and stationary as it says \"like the days that you dwelled.\" But one should have in mind that sitting or standing one is fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling in a synagogue or beit midrash. And it seems to me that in this one one could also enter a synagogue or beit midrash for shelter from the sun or cold or rain. And even if it looks as though one is entering the synagogue for protection from the elements, nonetheless, if one then learns a verse or a halakhah, it will not appear so flagrantly as though one entered because of the rain, sun, or cold.",
"And one can question the current practice to be lenient about speaking in the synagogue or beit midrash following prayers about all manner of mundane topics to a degree that this behavior seems to be permissible. And it appears to me that they base themselves on the position of Ramban who explains that synagogues in the diaspora are built on condition that even while they are in operation as synagogues they can be used for other needed purposes. And we think mundane conversations are needed. Each individual decides for himself. However, it is certainly forbidden to smoke \"bitter leaves\" in shul for there is no greater form of light-headedness than this. And it is only permissible for those who spend all day or half the day in the beit midrash studying Torah to smoke since this is like eating for them. But that smoking can only take place in a beit midrash and not a synagogue. And any other person who does not spend all day learning Torah in the beit midrash cannot smoke there and no condition put in place when the beit midrash was built can make this permissible. And so it is appropriate to rebuke those who do. ",
"One should not sleep in a synagogue, even a nap. But it is permissible to do so in a beit midrash for one who learns there. And for the sake of the synagogue itself one can eat or sleep there but one should not bring a mattress into the synagogue. And for this reason one can sleep in the synagogue on the night of Yom Kippur in order to guard the candles so that no bad thing occur. Also those who sleep in the synagogue on Yom Kippur to guard the candles recite many Psalms and songs and praises. It is also permissible to sleep in the synagogue for a mitzvah purpose like in earlier times they would enter the synagogue to intercalculate the year and they would not return to their homes at all and would eat and sleep there. But they ate only simple foods (bread and beans). And when one makes a siyum on a massechet, and certainly if one makes a siyum on something larger, one can eat in the beit midrash since that is a se'udat mitzvah [mitzvah meal]. But to set a large meal there seems not right and one should only do so in a case of great need. And this is specifically the se'udat mitzvah of Torah study and not some other mitzvah like the meal of a bris or pidyon ha-ben or wedding. Those cannot take place in a beit midrash since they have no relevance to a beit midrash. ",
"There are those who say that which we taught concerning the sanctity of batei midrash is only when they are communal, akin to a synagogue. However, if an individual sets aside a space for his own need to learn there, this space is not endowed with the sanctity of a beit midrash. And there is no doubt about this for the beginning of its building was for a generic home. And even now that a room has been dedicated for study, there was no intention to sanctify the room with the sanctity of a beit midrash. And there is no need for an explicit condition to have been articulated at the time of building for in the absence of an alternative the general assumption prevails."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"It is said in the Gemara (Brachot 42a) that bread which comes as dessert, one blesses over it \"who creates kinds of nourishment\" and not \"Who brings [bread from the earth]\", and what bread which comes as dessert is will be explained shortly. So, [our previous ruling is in effect] specifically when one eats it casually, but when one bases a meal on bread which comes as dessert, one blesses \"Who brings [bread from the earth]\" and [after eating] the blessing of the meal, and it requires washing of the hands. And if one originally intended to eat a little, and blessed \"Who creates many types of nourishment\", and then ate much -- one needs to bless the blessing of the meal. And this is in a case where one did not decide at the beginning of eating to eat a lot, and then it happened that one ate a lot, in which case the blessing of \"Who brings [forth bread from the earth]\" and hand-washing would not be appropriate. And even if, in the middle of one's eating, one changed one's mind and decided to eat a lot, nevertheless when from the time of the decision until the end of the eating there does not remain enough time to 'fix a meal' -- it's not necessary to wash one's hands and to bless \"Who brings\". But if one changed one's mind and decided to eat a lot at the beginning of one's eating, one does need to wahs one's hands (and this was the intention of the Magen Avraham on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 114)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"One should not remove the tablecloth and the bread until after the grace after the meal. And that which is implied in Berakhot (42a), that they would remove the tables before the grace after the meals, is because each one would eat on a small table by himself. So they would remove the tables from in front of those eating, but not from in front of the one reciting grace. But we who eat at one table, we should not remove [the tablecloth] from it until after the grace after the meal (Tosafot and Rosh on Berakhot 42a). And it appears that it is from this reason that there are some places that have the practice to leave the bread and tablecloth in in front of the one reciting the grace - as the Tur has written, see there - in order to do like what was done in their time.",
"And the reason for the thing is because blessing does not reside upon something empty, as it is found with Elisha and [the] Shuanamite. Since he said to her (II Kings 4:2), \"[what] you have at home.\" And in Sanhedrin 92a: Anyone who does not leave bread on his table will not ever see a sign of blessing. And likewise is it in the Zohar, Yitro (87b), and [these are its words: It is forbidden for a person to recite a blessing over an empty table. For supernal blessing does not reside in an empty place. And likewise is it found in the Zohar, Terumah (157b), see there. And our rabbi, the Beit Yosef (Yosef Karo), wrote (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 180:2), \"But he should not bring a whole [loaf of] bread and place on the table. And if he does so, he looks like, 'those who set a table for Luck (Gad),' that the prophet Isaiah mentions (Isaiah 65:11).\" But it is only to bring [it] that is forbidden. However if there was a whole bread laying there from before, he does not need to remove it (Taz and Magen Avraham). Hence on Shabbat, when the second Challah of the two breads (lechem mishneh) is laying [on the table], it should not be taken from the table. Yet there will perforce be crumbs left. But if there were no crumbs left on the table, he should bring [them] from another place. And in Job (20:21), It is written, \"There is no remnant (sarid) to consume it, hence his fortune will not prosper.\" So it is from here that our Sages, may their memory be blessed, expounded to leave over bread on the table. As it is implied from this itself that the remnant is crumbs, as that is [the meaning of] the expression, \"remnant.\""
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"It is intellectually understood that the notion of prayer is only relevant to the future and not the past, for how could it have an effect on the past? Only thanksgiving is relevant to the past- to give praise to Him, may He be blessed, for the good that He did for him. Regarding the future, the opposite is the case- for praise is only relevant for that which already transpired, and prayer is relevant to the future for one is asking God to do something for him....",
"Therefore, one who enters a city and hears the sound of shouting due to some sort of calamity that occurred in it and says, \"may it be [God's] will that [that shouting] is not from within my house\", has uttered a vain prayer, for this prayer is regarding the past and whatever has happened has already happened. But he can say, \"I trust that it is not from my house\" if he is wholly righteous. This is akin to the story of Hillel the Elder, regarding whom it is said: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord (Berachot 60a). The matter can be explicated in two ways: (1) in its simple rendering- that he is not afraid that it was coming from his house or (2) because he had accustomed his household to accept everything with joy, both the good and its opposite. Therefore, even if, God forbid, some calamity had taken place, they would not scream, but would rather accept it with love and silence. ...",
"So too, if one's wife is pregnant and he wants a male child, he can prayer up until 40 days: 'May it be [God's] will that my wife will give birth to a son', since up until 40 days [the fetus] is merely water [viz. not formed]. But after 40 days, when the form has been solidified, praying 'May it be [God's] will that my wife will give birth to a son' would be a vain prayer, for what has happened has already happened, and it cannot be changed. Even though we find that Dinah switched from a male to female, this was within 40 days, and even if it were after 40 days, we do not mention [viz. draw conclusions from] miracles (ibid.), and the matters related to our holy forefathers were all miraculous.",
"One who enters a town says: 'may it be Your will, Hashem our God and God of our forefathers, that you allow me to enter this town in peace'; this is a prayer regarding the future. When he has entered in peace he says: 'thank You Hashem, my God, for allowing me to enter this town in peace'; this is thanksgiving for the past. So too when he is leaving, he says: 'may it be Your will..that you take me out of this town in peace'. When he has left, he says: 'thank You...for allowing me to leave this town in peace; just as you have allowed me to leave in peace, so too should You guide me in peace, etc.'. This is the wayfarer's prayer, as is explained in section 110, see there. Maimonides wrote in his commentary to the Mishnah that this is not a prayer or a blessing, rather it is merely a request. Therefore, we are no longer accustomed to saying this, since Rashi explained that [the reason it is said is] due to the criminal activity in the towns, and in our times this is no longer relevant. Nonetheless, it is proper to say for one who is careful regarding the words of the Sages, especially since this is not a blessing such that one would be concerned about a blessing in vain.",
"...One who goes in to measure his grain should say: 'may it be Your will, Hashem my God, that you send blessing for my stalks', since this is a blessing regarding the future. When he has begun measuring, he says: 'blessed is He who sends his blessing for my stalks', since he trusts that there will be blessing. One who has measured and then blesses has uttered a vain prayer, since blessing is only found for something that cannot be seen, so that it will not seem as though it is really going against nature, since most miracles are hidden ones. One who enters a bathhouse (their bathhouses had fires under them and were a constant danger) should say: 'may it be Your will, Hashem My God, that you allow me to enter in peace and leave in peace, and that you save me from this fire, and similarly in the future'. When he has exited peacefully, he should say: 'Thank You Hashem, My God, for saving me from this fire'. We are no longer accustomed to this, since the fire is now to the side and is not dangerous (Bach, Taz, Magen Avraham). This is explicit in the Palestinian Talmud in the 10th chapter of Berachot. One who lets blood should say: 'May it be Your will..that this matter will be advantageous to my health, since you are a free doctor'. After you let blood, say: 'Blessed is the healer of the sick'. Some say to say it with God's name and kingship (Taz, #3 and Maimonides, as well as the Beit Yosef in the name of the Semag). It is proper to say before every healing: 'May it be Your will, Hashem My God, that this will be healing for me'. This is how the punctilious act. One should accustom himself to say: 'All that the Merciful One does is for good'. The principle is that one should always prayer for the future and beseech for mercy before Him, may He be blessed, and he should give thanksgiving for the past, thanking and praising according to his capacity. The more praise one accords to God, the better. This is like it says in the verse: 'it is good to praise God, and to sing your exalted name'. "
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"The Holy Sabbath is the great sign between the Holy Blessed One and God's people, Israel, as it says \"for it is a sign between me and you so that you know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.\" That is to say that even though Shabbat is a commemoration of creation, \"for in six days did the Lord make Heaven and Earth and on the seventh day it was Shabbat and He rested\" and therefore \"and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it for on it He rested\" etc. as is written regarding creation. And if that is so, it is relevant for all of God's creations. And Shabbat is not comparable to the holidays, which are a commemoration of the exodus from Egypt and the other nations have no relevance or connection to them for the other nations did not leave Egypt! However, everyone was created as a result of creation. And nonetheless, the Holy Blessed One did not give the sanctity of Shabbat to anyone other than Israel. And this is the meaning of \"to know that I am the Lord who makes you holy\" that is to say that you are holy alongside me, as it says, \"you shall be holy [for I...am holy]\" and therefore I have given the sanctity of Shabbat to you. For Shabbat and Israel are the two end purposes of creation. (And this is the meaning of the line from the siddur \"and he has not given Shabbat to the nations of the earth nor apportioned it...\" That is to say: even though they apparently have a relevant connection to Shabbat, [God did not give Shabbat to them]. And this is what is meant at the opening chapter of Massechet Shabbat, \"I have a special gift in my storehouse and its name is Shabbat, go and tell Israel etc.\" That is to say, even though it could have been given to all creation.",
"The holiness of Shabbat is higher than all other holiness, and its blessings are above all other blessings. Therefore, it was sanctified and blessed from the beginning of creation, as it says, \"And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.\" And this is the source of blessing to all the other days of the week. Therefore, Israel was commanded regarding Shabbat in seven different parshiot in the Torah, in Beshalach, Yitro, Mishpatim, Ki Tissa, Vayakhel, Emor, Va'Ethanan, to show that all seven days of the week are dependent on Shabbat. Therefore, we mention Shabbat every day when we say in the Song of the Day \"First Day towards Shabbat,\" \"Second Day towards Shabbat\" and so with them all.",
"Shabbat is the essential point of faith in the Holy Blessed One who created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. And anyone who does not observe Shabbat has no faith. Therefore, the Sages, throughout the Talmud compare one who violates Shabbat to one who worships idols. And all who violate Shabbat it is as if they reject the entire Torah. Therefore, immediately after the Jews left Egypt, we were commanded concerning Shabbat in Parashat Beshalach - which was before the giving of the Torah because the exodus from Egypt is testimony of God's supervision over the world to reward those who do good and the opposite to those who commit evil like the Egyptians and thoe like them. And it is evidence of God's ability to change nature like the plagues of Egypt and the splitting of the Sea and the descent of the mannah and the quail and the well. And if one does not admit that the Holy Blessed One created the world, then he denies all these things. Therefore, he gave them all Shabbat immediately after they left Egypt. And so too our Sages said that Shabbat and the civil law were commanded at Marah which was the first stop after the splitting of the Sea, as is said in the Torah. And we see, regarding that first Shabbat, that some people desecrated Shabbat and went to collect mannah, and the Holy Blessed One said, \"For how long will you refuse to keep my mitzvot and my Torah.\" Here it is explicit that Shabbat is a general stand in for Torah and Mitzvot. (And so too at the end of Parashat Ki Tissa it says \"keep the holiday of matzot\" and then after it says \"six days you shall work and on the seventh day you shall rest\" for it is more common and sacred. Rather it tells us that to celebrate the holiday of matzah one needs to observe Shabbat for if there is no Shabbat there is no Pesach and no Torah).",
"",
"",
"",
"The Laws of Shabbat are vast and deep. And our rabbis, the Tur and Shulhan Arukh, for all of their length, wrote nothing more than what is forbidden and what is permitted, but they did not write the essence of the primary categories of forbidden labor (avot melachot) and their derivatives (toladot) and the violations of Shabbat by Torah law (d'oraita) and rabbinic law (d'rabbanan) and the general root principles of the categories of forbidden labor on Shabbat. And Rambam did explain everything. And for the sake of completing this holy endeavor, it was our intention as well to explain a little bit of this and the ways in which Rambam differs from our teachers Rashi, Tosafot, and other Rishonim as will be explained with God's help.",
"And this is the language of Rambam at the beginning of the first chapter of Hilkhot Shabbat: \"Cessation from melakhah on the seventh day is a positive mitzvah as it says (Exodus 20:9) 'and on the Seventh Day you shall desist.' and all who do melakhah on the seventh day negate a positive mitzvah and violate a prohibition as it says 'do not do any melakhah.' And what is the liability for an act of melakhah? If one does it intentionally with malice aforethought he is liable for 'karet' and if there are two witnesses and a warning then he is liable to be stoned. And if he does the melakhah unintentionally then he brings a hatat sacrifice. And all places where the word 'exempt' appears in the context of Shabbat it means 'exempt' by the laws of the Torah but forbidden by rabbinic law and so said our Sages in the beginning of Massechet Shabbat 'all exemptions of Shabbat mean exempt but still forbidden except for these three exceptions...' unless it says 'permitted' or 'not liable whatsoever.\" And the category of exempt from punishment yet still forbidden when violated is punished by lashes for a rabbinic violation. ",
"At the beginning of Parashat Vayakhel (Exodus 35:1) it is written, \"And Moshe gathered etc. these are the things that the Lord commanded you to do: six days you shall do your melakhah and the seventh day should be holy to you etc.\" And the explanation is that God commanded them concerning the construction of the Mishkan and on Shabbat it was forbidden to do any of the constructive labors for the mishkan as is explained in the Midrash Mechilta. And from here we learn the tradition of the Sages to learn the general principles and great ideas of the labors of Shabbat. for from the juxtaposition of the matter of Shabbat and the construction of the Mishkan we learn that the forbidden labors of Shabbat were labors done in constructing the Mishkan. And so our Sages taught (Shabbat 49b): One is not liable other than for performing a labor of a variety that was done in the Mishkan. They sowed, you shall not sow. And sowing was done for the mishkan in order to plant ingredients needed for fabric dyes (according to Rashi). They reaped, you shall not reap etc. And from here we learned the 39 central categories of labor that were important for the mishkan (see the beginning of Bava Kama). and even though some of the melakhot are similar to each other such as winnowing, sorting, and sifting, for all of them are the removal of food from waste but the separating is done differently. Winnowing is by means of the wind and sorting is by hand and sifting is with a sieve. Nonetheless, since they were all distinct and important tasks in the Mishkan, they are all called Avot Melakhot (primal paradigmatic categories), and the other forms of labor that are comparable to the paradigms are called derivatives (toladot). (See Shabbat 73b).",
"And if you will ask: what practical difference (nafka minah) does it make if something is an \"av\" or a \"toladah\" - a paradigmatic Shabbat violation or a deriviative? For one is liable for stoning, karet, or a sin offering if done accidentally for any violation. But there is a large practical difference. For if one does two forms of labor if they they are one \"av\" and a \"toladah\" of that same \"av\" then one is only liable one sin offering. But if they each have their own \"av\" or if one is a \"toladah\" of a different av, then one is liable for two sin offerings. And the Rambam writes this all in Chapter 7, halakhah 7 see there. And according to the opinions of our rabbis the Tosafot (Shabbat 73b) there is a rationale that there would be a difference when it came to the warning. For the warning needs to be for a \"toladah\" for the sake of its \"av.\" And if so, there is a significant practical distinction between an \"av\" and its \"toladah\" and this is the implication of the Talmud too. However, the Tosafot themselves raise doubts about this. And suggest the possibility that one could be liable even if one was warned for a \"toladah.\" But this is obvious for if one was warned regarding one \"toladah\" for a different \"toladah\" even if they both have the same \"av\" that wojuld not count as warning unless the warning was for the specific \"toladah\" that the person was about to do or the \"av\" associated with that \"toladah.\" And for this reason to carify what counts as an \"av\" and what counts as a \"toladah.\"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"(starting at ועכשיו) We gather in shul and we say five chapters of psalms from Lechu Neranena (Ch. 95) until Hashem malach yirgezu amim (Ch. 99) because they are about the future redemptive days. Therefore (like Radak says), a person says to his friend “Let us sing to Hashem,” and then [the next chapter we sing] “Hashem reigns,” that is to say that we’ll fulfill that which is written (Zecharia 14:9) “On that day Hashem will be One and His Name will be One.” For Shabbat is a hint to this time, to “The Day that is Entirely Shabbat,” and then we’ll sing a new song (Ch. 96) to Hashem. For all songs are in the feminine, and the song of the future [redemption] will be in the masculine, like the Midrash explain. Therefore we say these chapters."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"The Rambam wrote, \"Lighting Shabbos candles is not (some ordinary) optional act, where you may or may not light them according to your desire. And (to think) it is not a mitzvah and where you are you not required to chase after it... rather it is an obligation for both men and women to have in their homes a light for Shabbos. Even if you do not have your own food to eat, you must go door to door begging for oil and kindle the light because this (light) is included in \"Shabbos Pleasure\" (the mitzveh to have Oneg Shabbos). And one must say the blessing before the kindling: Blessed are you Hashem our God King of the Universe Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to kindle a light for Shabbos. One recites this blessing just like we do for all Rabbinical requirements.\" And even though we do not recite a blessing on (each and ) every matter relating to \"Shabbos Pleasure\" (oneg Shabbos), nevertheless, the kindling of the light was a Rabbinical ordinance in itself, as it is said, \"'The kindling of a light for Shabbos in an obligation.' Rashi explains the reason is 'Honoring Shabbos' (Kavod Shabbos) since you can only hold an important feast in a well lit place.\" So according to Rashi, (the reason we light a Shabbos candle) is not because of \"Shabbos Pleasure\" (Oneg Shabbos) but rather due to \"Honoring Shabbos\" (Kavod Shabbos)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"... The Levush seemed to say that it is good toadd to the number of people called to the Torah [a.k.a. “hosafot”]; he wrote regarding addition, “We ascend in sanctity.” It does not appear so, though, from all of the authorities; it seems that they only permitted addition[and did not encourage it]. According to Rashi, one may add because adding will not keep people from their work. According to the Ran adding is permitted because Shabbat has great sanctity…",
"",
"Some say that the mishnaic permission to add ascendants referred only to the time of the mishnah, when the middle ascendants did not recite blessings. Today, when each ascendant recites blessings, adding ascendants adds blessings, and is close to introducing purposeless blessings. These blessings were never instituted. This argument is correct, but this opinion has never been accepted. Most authorities did not agree to it, for even in the time of the gemara each ascendant recited blessings, and yet early authorities all wrote that one may add. This is the custom which has spread.",
"The same permission extends to Yom Kippur, when it occurs on Shabbat. Some are careful not to add ascendants on Yom Kippur even if it occurs on Shabbat, though; the beginnings of each portion are about atonement, and so it is good not to change them. However, what can we do? The people will not listen to us, saying that they must add ascendants due to complaints by the laity who wish to ascend to the Torah. Since there is no prohibition involved, it is not worthwhile to stand in argument against it and to protest. "
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"It is written, \"If you will restrain your feet on Shabbat; refrain from accomplishing your own needs on My holy day…and you will honour it by not engaging in your own affairs, not seeking your own needs, not discussing matters.\" (Isaiah 58:13) One may not perform on Shabbat any business or commercial activity, even if there is no violation of an av melachah [one of the thirty-nine categories of prohibited activities]. This is what the verse refers to as \"your own needs,\" as if to say weekday needs. The Torah warned us about acting out our business, as well as speaking about it. The Sages expounded that speaking [about business] is forbidden, but thinking about it is permitted (Shabbat 150a); one may think about his business in one’s heart. Nevertheless, on account of oneg Shabbat (pleasure on Shabbat), there is a commandment to not think about it at all, and his work should appear completed in his eyes. The Sages only permitted [business] thought which will not cause a discomfortof the heart and worrying. An example of this occurs when a person’s business is going well and is successful, and there is no scattering of the soul. However, thinking which causes worrying and discomfort of the heart is forbidden, for there could be no greater abdication of oneg Shabbat. A midrash (Mechilta Shemot 20:9) on the verse, \"For six days you shall work and perform all of your work\", explains that all of a person’s work should appear completed in his eyes when Shabbat arrives. It is impossible for a person to complete all of his work in one week. Rather, it should appear to a person on each Shabbat as if he had completed all of his work. There could be no greater oneg Shabbat than this. (Tur)Similarly, we say in davening [Shabbat minchah] \"a rest of peace and tranquillity, calm and security, a complete rest that You desire.\" Also, in the blessing after meals we say, \"there should be neither distress nor grief on our day of rest.\" (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ri) There is great reward for observing this. Even in this world, a person is rewarded in his livelihood, as recorded in a Talmudic braita: A righteous person had a breach in his field's fence, and he decided to fix it. He then remembered that it was Shabbat, and he refrained from fixing it. (He did not fix it during the week, either, as a self-imposed penalty for thinking about fixing it on Shabbat.) A miracle happened, and a caper bush grew [in the breach], and from this plant he received enough livelihood to support him and his family (Shabbat 150b)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"For some decades, due to our great sins, leprosy has spread among cantors. These cantors hold a small silver fork or a lump of iron (termed kamar tone) when standing before the platform on Shabbat and Yom Tov, for setting the song’s pitch. The cantors place the fork between their teeth, and they hear a musical sound; they then know how to arrange the song. This is, literally, a musical instrument, designed to produce music. We do not have the power to protest their claims that they cannot generate music without these instruments. Due to our great sins, our generation is loose and the masses support these cantors. Not only are we unable to protest, but even exiting the synagogue causes a fight, as is known. Perhaps we could suggest that this device is not among the “musical instruments” which our sages prohibited, for the following reasons: The sound of this music is not heard other than from the cantor’s mouth to his ear, the sound is only momentary, and the purpose is to generate vocal song, which was never forbidden. This matches what we have written regarding whistling and placing one’s hand in one’s mouth [on Shabbat]. We need to justify this; it would be disgraceful to say that the Jewish nation would stumble in a Shevut, all the more so when standing in prayer before the King of Kings, G-d Himself! Further, regarding the practice of saying words, and repeating them twice and three times, and spreading notes before the platform to sing in the style of a performance – all who have awe of heaven are pained by this, and they cannot protest, for the masses are undisciplined, and they will not listen to the words of the sages in this matter! They say that this is their enjoyment of Shabbat and Yom Tov! In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before G-d will flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of Israel, whose eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said that one silences a cantor only for repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not true for other words that they repeat twice and three times. As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present a reason to state a clear prohibition here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to practice in error, etc.”",
"[Further, regarding the practice of saying words, and repeating them twice and three times, and spreading notes before the platform to sing in the style of a performance – all who have awe of heaven are pained by this, and they cannot protest, for the masses are undisciplined, and they will not listen to the words of the sages in this matter! They say that this is their enjoyment of Shabbat and Yom Tov! In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before G-d will flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of Israel, whose eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said that one silences a cantor only for repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not true for other words that they repeat twice and three times. As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present a reason to state a clear prohibition here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to practice in error, etc.” In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before G-d will flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of Israel, whose eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said that one silences a cantor only for repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not true for other words that they repeat twice and three times. As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present a reason to state a clear prohibition here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to practice in error, etc.”]"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"It's taught in Sanhedrin 42a: \"And Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The term “this” is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them, since in the blessing of the moon there is an aspect of greeting the Divine Presence. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing, in honor of the Divine Presence.\" Behond it's clear that sanctification of the moon is a great and terrible matter like greeting the Shechina. And certainly there are great and terrible secrets regarding it, as the wise receivers of tradition have elaborated: the matter of the moon's diminishing and the matter of the First Man's sin, they touch one another. In the future, when the First Man's sin is rectified - then the diminishing of the moon will also be rectified. And regarding that moment it is said \"And the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun\" (Isaiah 30:26).",
"And according to the plain meaning, the reason that we bless the moon more than the stars/planets, although it's smaller than almost all the other planets (excepting Mercury), is because it's closer to the Earth than all the other stars/planets; it's only about 43,000 parasangs away. The moon inspires in us a feeling of the greatness of the Holy Blessed One, since every night its path is perceived, and it orbits the earth every month. For this reason it's called \"yareach\" [ירח], as it is written \"[God] made a moon [ירח] to mark the seasons\" (Psalms 104:19) -- since it orbits the earth in every moon of days, and its waxing and waning are perceptible. And Israel, who count [days] by the moon, are compared to the moon; just as the moon has no light of its own, and is illuminated by the sun's light, so too Israel have no light other than the Light of the Holy Blessed One, which shines for us from the midst of the Holy Torah, as it is written \"A sun and a shield is Lord God\" (Psalms 84:12). And just as the moon darkens and lightens, so too is Israel; just as we say in the blessing \"and to the moon They said, 'renew yourself!' - a crown of glory to the womb-borne, for they are destined to renew themselves like it.\" And just as the moon exists even in the days of its diminishment [waning], when it seems dark on Earth -- it however is light on its other face from above, as is known; so too Israel. And for all of these reasons, Israel accepted this commandment with joy.",
"Therefore, the one who sees the moon in her renewal blesses \"Blessed... is the One with Whose word They created shechakim ...\" - and the firmament is here called shechakim as we say in Chagiga 12b: \"[there are seven firmaments, including] shechakim, since there millstones stand and grind out manna for the righteous\" [the word for grind and shechakim are similar]. Therefore Rav Yehuda, who said this statement about blessing of the moon in Sanhedrin 42a, he thinks in Chagiga 12b that there are only two firmaments, \"heavens\" and \"the utmost heavens\". And it's possible that the two are firmament and the shechakim, and his intent was: that although it's obvious that there are seven firmaments, they fall into two categories. For in the Tana\"ch we find only these two names for the firmaments: firmament [רקיע] and shechakim [שחקים], and these are \"heavens\" [שמים] and \"the utmost heavens\" [שמי השמים]. And this is why it says \"at Their word They created shechakim, and with the breath of Their Mouth all their hosts\" -- since so says David, \"at the word of God the heavens were made, and with the breath of Their Mouth all their hosts\" (Psalms 33:6). And it says \"A law and a time They gave to them, that they should not change their courses\". The \"time\" is all the days if the world, six thousand years. \"Being glad and rejoicing to do the will of their Creator\", as it is written \"[the sun] rejoices like a hero about to run a race\" (Psalms 19:6). And it uses the language of \"gladness and joy\", like the language designated for Yisrael, as it says \"Gladness and joy shall abide there, Thanksgiving and the sound of music\" (Isaiah 51:3). \"Doers of truth whose doings are true\" -- this is the text of Rash\"i, and it refers to the sun and the moon whose courses do not change. And the Tosfot render it \"Doer of truth whose doings are true\" and referring to the Holy Blessed One, since with truth and justice did They diminish the moon. \"And to the moon They said to renew itself...\" -- this is the world to come, which will be entirely renewed. And as for now, it renews itself every month. And this is a sign for Israel, who are \"those borne in the womb\", since so said the prophet \"[the people of Israel] who are carried from the womb\" (Isaiah 46:3). And one concludes the blessing \"Blessed... is the One Who renews months.\" [מחדש חודשים]",
"And after this we are accustomed to say \"Blessed is the One Who formed you\" -- as a sign for Ya'akov. And some begin \"Blessed is the One Who made you\", due to the order of the words. And dance three times opposite it with toes [i.e. jump], and say \"Just as I... Fall...\", and [the latter formula] backwards three times [each]. And we are accustomed to say \"David, King of Israel, lives and endures\", and the intent is the descendants of David. For the kingship of the house of David is compared to the moon, as it is written in Psalms (89:37-8) \"His line continues forever... as the moon established forever.\" As if to say -- even though it gets dark, it will get light again. And after that we say each to the other \"Peace be upon you...\" \"The voice of my beloved...\" \"My beloved is similar...\" \"A song of ascents...\" \"Praise God from Their Sanctuary...\" \"It is taught in the house of Rabbi Yishmael, if...\" and \"May it be Your will\", as it is written in prayerbooks. And our teacher the Rem\"a [Rabbi Moshe Isserles] writes: \"we are accustomed to say \"David...\" for his kingship is compared to the moon, and is destined to renew itself like one. And the community of Israel will return to cleave unto the Holy Blessed One and their example is the moon which renews itself with the sun, as it says \"the sun and the shield of God...\" (Psalms 84:12). And therefore we do joys [?] and dances at the sanctification of the moon: an example of the joy of a wedding.\" This is the end of the Rem\"a's language. And the primary portion is the blessing, and [the lack of it] prevents [it working], and the other things, if one didn't say them -- it's not prevented. (And one shakes the folds of one's clothes.)",
"Sanctification of the moon is only during entire night, and when the moon is shining and we benefit from its light. And not before the night; we need the moonlight's shining to be recognised on the land, so it casts a shadow. And in the time of the blessing one straightens [stretches?] one's legs and fixes one's eyes on the moon, and makes the blessing standing. And when it's written to fix one's eyes on the moon to gaze on it, this is only before the blessing. But during the blessing one lowers one's eyes and does not look at it. And so we are accustomed according to kabbalah [accepted tradition].",
"",
"",
"",
"If the moon is not visible until the last night [on which one can bless it] and the people are standing in prayer and the moon becomes visible, and after prayer it's clear that the moon will no longer be visible and the opportunity will be lost: If they are in Shema and its blessings - they need to interrupt, even in the middle of a section. And if they are able to finish a section, that's excellent! And if the same thing happens -- they need to interrupt the reading of the Scroll of Esther (Sha'arei Teshuva in the name of the Noda biYehuda). But this is an unlikely occurence, and I shall not elaborate on it."
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"The Shabbat that is before Pesach is called \"Shabbat HaGadol\" or the \"great Shabbat\" because of the great miracle that occurred on that day. For the original Paschal lamb of Egypt was taken on the tenth of Nisan and the Pesach when they left Egypt was a Thursday (Tractate Shabbat 87a). It follows that the Shabbat prior to leaving Egypt was the tenth of the month and each individual took a lamb for his paschal offering and tied it to the frame of his bed. And when the Egyptians asked, \"what is this?\" They answered and said that the Holy Blessed One has commanded that we slaughter that animal. And the Egyptians worshipped sheep and yet they were stunned and silent. And furthermore, Israel informed that that in the future the Holy Blessed One would kill their first born. And the first born of Egypt waged a war with Pharaoh and their fathers and this is what is meant by \"afflicting Egypt with its first born\" as is explained in the Midrash. And on account of this miracle, we call it \"Shabbat HaGadol.\"",
"And lest you say, if the above is true, why observe Shabbat HaGadol on Shabbat rather than on the 10th of Nissan regardless of which day of the week it occurs? And one answer is that on the 10th of Nissan Miriam died and so it was not desirable to make the commemoration dependent on the calendar date such that the anniversary of her death should be a day of celebration. Furthemore, the tenth of Nisan is the day that they crossed the Jordan River, as it says in the Book of Joshua, and I would have thought that Shabbat HaGadol was established on Shabbat to set it apart from crossing the Jordan River. For this reason Shabbat HaGadol was established on Shabbat for the Jordan was not crossed on Shabbat. And lest you ask, who cares if people are confused and ascribe Shabbat HaGadol to crossing the Jordan? The answer is that these days are about the miracles of Egypt which were greater than the miracles of crossing the Jordan."
],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Additonally, one cannot say that the Torah permitted [with the word \"tashbisu\" (Ex. 12:15)] *only* bitul but not searching [and destroying], because that would be completely illogical. Because in all instances where benefit is prohibited, for example, the Asheira tree, or [other items of] idolatry, the Torah instructs us only to search [and destroy] as it is written \"you shall definitely destroy...\" (Deut. 12:2). Rather, the Torah certainly is being lenient in the case of chometz, such that bitul [on its own] is sufficient, but obviously, searching [and destroying] are also included in \"tashbisu\". [Therefore,] one who does not wish to use bitul, or is unable to concentrate sufficiently, can search in all the places into which chometz was brought, and destroy it, either by burning it, or by one of the other methods which will, with Heaven's help, be explained. And after he searched all those places, even if chometz was subsequently found, he has not transgressed a Torah prohibition, because the Torah relies on presumptions. And since he did all that was required, he is simply a victim of circumstances. Thus, on the Torah level, one may use either of two approaches, either searching [and destroying] or bitul, and he will have fulfilled his obligation.\n"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"After reciting Halachma Anya the matzah is removed from the table. This is because of their custom [in ancient times] they had small tables and they would remove the tables. And nowadays we cover the matzah with a cloth and that is in place of removing the table. And this practice too is so that the young children will ask \"why are we removing the table, we have not eaten yet?\" And immediately after this we pour the second cup so that the child will say, \"why have we poured a second cup, we have not eaten yet?\" And nowadays we do not have the practice of asking that question and instead we ask \"Mah Nishtanah.\" And the theme of Mah Nishtanah is along the lines of \"How great are your works, O Lord\" or \"how goodly are your tents, Jacob\" in the manner of excited surprise. And so too here we are surprised, \"how great are all the differences about this night.\" And in the Mishnah there is a question about the roasted Korban Pesach and no question about reclining since they always ate meals while reclining and nowadays there is no relevance to a question about the roasted korban pesach and we do have a question about reclining because we do not typically eat reclining. And if the son does not have the capacity to ask, the father should teach him. And if he has no son, the daughter should ask. And if there is no daughter, his wife should ask, or someone else at the table should ask. For the Torah was insistent that the matter of retelling the exodus from Egypt on this night should be by means of question and answer. And if there is nobody else at the meal to ask, he should ask himself. And when he asks he does not need to recite the Mah Nishtanah but can begin with Avadim Hayinu (we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt...). [And do not say \"this night we only eat marror\" rather say \"this night we eat marror.\"]",
"And when the questioner finishes \"Mah Nishtanah\" the matzah is uncovered and we begin by saying \"Avadim Hayinu - We were slaves\" in a loud voice and in excitement and with great joy and gladness. And the essense of saying the hagadah is that by means of the exodus from Egypt we become subjects for ever and for all generations to God and to God's Torah, and we are now God's servants. And this is fully logical since a free person cannot be acquired as a slave against his will. However, someone who was already a slave to another can be acquired by someone else without the consent of the slave and can be acquired against his will as is explained in Yoreh Deah 267. And now, on account that we were slaves to PHaraoh and the Holy Blessed One redeemed us from his hand, therefore, even against our will we are God's servants. And this is the meaning of the verse, \"For the children of Israel are servants to me for I took them out of the Land of Egypt.\" Meaning, the children of Israel are servants to me against their will since I took them from Egypt where they were slaves. And therefore in each generation each person is obligated to see him and herself as though he or she had just left Egypt and had been acquired by the Holy Blessed One as a servant forever. And there is no right to throw off the yoke of Torah from one's neck. And there is proof of this in the verse \"on account of this God did for me\" which applies from generation to generation. And this is why one who wishes to be stubborn and claim that it only applies to the first generation that leaves Egypt, like the question asked by the Wicked Son who says \"what does this mean to you?\" That is to say \"but you did not leave Egypt.\" And to this a proof is provided when the Torah says \"and we were taken out from there\" and concludes \"to give us the land.\" After all, didn't every individual who left Egypt die in the desert? Rather, it must mean that it refers to each generation. (And this is what Rava says in the Gemara 117b \"and you should say and he took us from there\" and pay careful attention adn it will become clear)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"And there are different practices regarding mourning customs during Sefirat Ha'Omer. There are some who have the practice of forbidding [weddings and haircuts and parties with music] immediately after Pesach until Lag Ba'Omer, and from that point on they permit weddings and haircuts, since according to a midrashic tradition they [ie the students of Rabbi Akiva] stopped dying and 34 days were left. And it would be logical for the prohibitions to remain until the 35th of sefirah, but we say \"a little bit of the day counts as the full day\" and so it is permissible [to marry and cut hair etc.] on the 34th day but not early. And this is the path of our master the Beit Yosef who writes, \"and the custom is not to have one's hair cut until Lag Ba\"Omer for it is said that is when they [Rabbi Akiva's students] stopped dying. And one should not take a haircut until the morning of the 34th of sefirah. However, if Lag BaOmer occurs on Friday, then one can cut one's hair on that day out of honor of Shabbat for that is a time of haircuts for the sake of Shabbat.\" - And these above are the words of Beit Yosef. And he further writes in se'if 3 \"some have the custom to take a haircut on Rosh Hodesh Iyyar and it is a mistake for them to do so.\" Those were his words above. And he meant that according to the custom that these things are permissible after Lag Ba'Omer, the prohibitions must begin immediately after Pesach for they died for the 34 days after Pesach. And if that is so, how could one take a haircut on Rosh Hodesh Iyyar - it's an internal contradiction of two different mourning customs. And what we said about haircuts is the same for weddings for they are all one matter."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"It is well-known that it is a positive commandment of the Torah to yell out and to supplicate about every woe - that it should not come - and it is explained in the Laws of Fasts. And there are days that all of Israel fasts because of the woes that happened on them in order to awaken the hearts and open the paths of repentance. And this is to remember our bad deeds and the deeds of our ancestors, which were like our current [bad] deeds, until it caused them - and us - those woes. And in remembering these things, we repent to do the good, as it is written (Leviticus 26:40), \"And they will confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers.\" (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Fasts 5) ",
"And they are four days: The third day of Tishrei, on which Gedaliah ben Achikam was killed and the remaining coal of Israel was extinguished and this was a cause for the increase of the woes. The tenth of Tevet, on which the evil Nevuchadnetsar approached Jerusalem, as it is written in II Kings 25:1 and in Jeremiah 52:4, \"in the ninth year of [the rule of Tsidkiyahu] on the tenth month on the tenth of the month, Nevuchadnetsar and all of his army came upon Jerusalem.\" And the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed this to Yechezkel - who was in Babylonia with the exile of Yochaniah - in a prophecy on that same day, as it is written (Ezekiel 24:1-2), \"And the word of God was upon me in the ninth year on the tenth month on the tenth day, saying, 'Son of man, write for yourself the name of this day - of this very day - [as] the king of Babylonia approached Jerusalem on this very day.'\" Which is to say that He commanded him to write the name of the day, which is the name of the month and also the specific day, and he wrote, \"on the tenth of the tenth month,\" and the prophet did not know for what [reason] He commanded him to write this. And after he wrote it, He revealed to him, \"You should know 'the king of Babylonia approached Jerusalem on this very day.'\" And through this they all saw the true prophecy, as that day and that time were revealed to the prophet in Babylonia. Since, the exact [time] of the day is called \"that very day,\" as per chatsot hayom (midday). And [this is] because there were then false prophets who fooled Israel, like Chananiah ben Azur and his colleagues, who prophesied that the Temple would not be destroyed and that Israel would not be exiled from their land, and [so] they strengthened the hands of the sinners. And Yirmiah - who rebuked them that they should return to God, and if not, the Temple would be destroyed and Israel would be exiled - they placed in the courtyard of the guardhouse and put him in a pit of mud, as is explained in Jeremiah 38. Hence, God informed Yechezkel the prophet in Babylonia that Yirmiah was a true prophet, and he prophesied in Babaylonia all that was happening in the Land of Israel, and that the Tenth of Tevet was the beginning of all the woes. Therefore, they established it as a fast day for the generations. And it is found in the name of the early ones, that if the Tenth of Tevet would come out on Shabbat, it would push off the Shabbat, as it is written about it, \"on that very day,\" like Yom Kippur (Beit Yosef, Section 550 in the name of Abudarham). But we do not hold like this, as will be explained.",
"And on the seventeenth day of Tammuz, five things occurred. The tablets were broken. And the [daily] sacrifice in the first Temple ceased. And the city of Jerusalem was breached at the [time of] the destruction of the second Temple. And Apostimos burned the Torah and set up an image in the [Temple] chamber. And so [too] on the ninth of Av, five things also occurred. 1) It was decreed in the desert that Israel would not enter the land. 2-3) And the Temple was destroyed, the first and the second. As at the end of II Kings 25 8-9, it is written, \"And on the fifth month on the ninth of the month, in the twelfth year of the reign of Nevuchadnetsar...came Nevuzaradan... and the burned the House of the Lord.\" And at the end of Jeremiah 52:12, it is written about this very story, \"on the tenth of the month.\" And they said in Taanit, \"It was taught, 'It is impossible to say on \"on the seventh,\" as behold it has already been stated \"on the tenth;\" and it is impossible to say \"on the tenth,\" as behold it has already been stated \"on the seventh.\" So how is this? On the seventh, they entered the chamber, etc. On the ninth close to darkness, they set it on fire and it continued to burn the entire day of the tenth'\" (Taanit 29a). 4) And Beitar was conquered on it, and there were thousands and tens of thousands of Jews [there]. And there was a king there and many imagined that he was the king Messiah. But the sins caused that they were all killed and they were also not allowed to be buried, and it was a great woe like the destruction of the Temple. 5) And on this day that is fit for punishments, the evil Turnus Rufus plowed over the [Temple] chamber, in order to fulfill that which was stated, \"Zion will be plowed for a field.\"",
"And these four fasts; behold they are explicit in the tradition through the prophet, Zachariah 8:19, \"So said the Lord of Hosts, 'the fast of the fourth and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth will be for the House of Yehuda for happiness and rejoicing.'\" \"The fast of the fourth\" is the seventeenth of Tammuz, as it is in the fourth month. And \"the fast of the fifth\" is the ninth of Av, as it is in the fifth month. And \"the fast of the seventh\" is the Fast of Gedaliah, as it is in the seventh of the months. And \"the fast of the tenth\" is the tenth of Tevet, as it is in the tenth of the months. And all of Israel is accustomed to fast on those days. And even though with the first Temple, Jerusalem was breached on the ninth of Tammuz - as it is written in Kings there - nonetheless, they did not decree a fast upon it; only on the seventeenth, upon which the city was breached with the second [Temple]. And for us the destruction of the second Temple is [more] weighty, as from then we have become poor and scattered to the four corners of the earth. And to decree that they should fast on [both] the ninth and the seventeenth, we do not decree too much upon the community. (And Beit Yosef brought in the name of Rabbenu Yerucham that Gedaliah was killed on Rosh Hashanah, and it was pushed off to the next day - see there. And nonetheless, it does not have the status of a fast that is pushed off, concerning one who needs to do a circumcision - as it is like this all of the years. And it is not similar to a fast that is pushed off from Shabbat to Sunday, as everyone [is aware] of the pushing off, which is not the case with the Fast of Gedaliah, as all years are the same. And [this is] like the conclusion of Taz - see there.)",
"In the Talmud there, it is expounded from the verses in Zachariah that in the time of the Temple these fasts were for happiness and rejoicing [and not for fasting], and so [too] will it be in the future, if God wills. And during the time of the destruction: if the Children of Israel are in a state of pain, they are obligated to fast - and it is positive commandment of the words of tradition and all of Israel accepted it upon them; and in a time when they are not in a state of pain, if the majority of the community wanted, they fast [and] if the majority did not want, they don't fast. And at this time, they wanted and accepted upon themselves to fast (Tur). And especially now there is pain. And nonetheless, we did not accept them as a complete public fast to be stopping [to eat] from when it is still day [on the eve], to walk barefoot [and to abstain from] bathing, applying [ointments] and sexual relations, except only on the Ninth of Av. But [on] the other three fasts, we eat at night [on the eve] and we do not practice all of the stringencies, but [rather just] fast from the morning to the evening, as per the law of a private fast. And at this time - [due to] our many sins - [there are those that] devalue these fasts and they will bear the punishment [for this] in the future. As it is forbidden for anyone who is healthy to separate himself from the community, and [if he does,] he transgresses a positive commandment from the words of tradition. And even the one that needs to eat because of his weakness should not eat his meal like on all the [other] days, but rather only food and drink needed for the sustenance of his body. And this is [what] we are accustomed [to do]. "
],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"And know that there are those who place a Volume Completion on these days, so as to eat flesh. And it is a hideous thing, because even though in Mo'ed Qatan (9a) it is clear that it is permitted it measure some for a Mitzvah Feast, as it was there by the building of the Temple op. cit., certainly to have one a priori so as to eat flesh - not good at all. And there are those who learn a volume a priori so as to make a Completion in these days, and this thing is possible, in order that because of this occupation with Torah is produced. Who? - do not ask for Completion except from Sages which are close to Torah learning. And we do not practice with Completion, and even if a Completion occurs in these days - we place the Completion after the Ninth of Av, so that it is possible to celebrate in the Completion celebration according to the deserved glory of Torah."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"We do not recite Tachanun during Shacharit on Erev Rosh Hashana (i.e. the day whose evening is the start of Rosh Hashana). Even though we \"fall on our faces\" (recite petitionary prayers) through the observance of Selichot (during the final days of Elul), and sometimes these (pre-dawn prayers) continue into the day, nonetheless during Shacharit (on Erev Rosh Hashana) we do not recite Tachanun, just as for the Eve of every Yom Tov. And we do not sound the shofar on Erev Rosh Hashana, in order to separate what is merely permitted from what is obligated. Though in the study hall, it is allowed. We do not sound shofar at night anytime during the whole month of Elul, even for the sake of learning. For one does not try to arouse (heavenly mercy) at night, and sounding the shofar arouses the uppermost qualities. The custom is to allow oaths on Erev Rosh Hashana."
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah using a shofar, as it says (Numbers 29:1), \"it shall be a day of teru'ah for you.\" And each teruah should have a tekiah before it and a tekiah after it And the reason for this is explained in Section 609. And behold we blow twice: once after Torah reading, and the second during Mussaf along with the blessings. And this is not a violation of \"bal tosif\" for that prohibition is only when one adds to the essential mitzvah for example if someone blows with two shofarot at the same time - similar to how someone would violate that prohibition by adding a fifth species to the lulav. But someone who takes a lulav and puts it down, even one hundred times, does not in this way violate the prohibition of \"bal tosif.\" Similarly with a shofar: if one blows and then blows again - this is not bal tosif (see Tosafot, Rosh Hashannah 16b \"Ve'Toki'im).",
" However, why did the sages need to do this? Behold, there is certainly no question about having shofar blasts during Musaf for the essence of the mitzvah is to blow shofar along with the Musaf blessings. So the real question is why was it necessary to blow shofar earlier. And the Talmud says about this (ibid.): \"in order to confuse Satan.\" And Rashi explains (s.v. k'dai l'arbev), that this is what that implies: Since Satan sees how beloved the mitzvot are by Israel, that they do mitzvot, go back and do them a second time, he is silenced from making accusations. And Tosafot, in the name of the Arukh, explain, based on the Yerushalmi, that Satan is frightened lest this be the Shofar of the future as it says, \"and it shall be on that day when they blast the great shofar.\" and so is too preoccupied to lodge accusations against Israel. See there. And this matter requires further explanation...",
"It seems to me that this is the explanation: In truth, why were the special Rosh Hashanah blessings of Malkhiot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot established as part of Mussaf? Why were they not included as part of Shacharit? And, in truth, the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 32b) asks this question: \"What about the principle that we should display alacrity in mitzvah performance? We should say these blessings in Shacharit!\" And the Talmud answers, \"this was taught in a time of persecution.\" And the Palestinian Talmud there (4:8) explains in greater detail, that in truth this happened, for the non-Jewish nations decreed against us and barred us from blowing shofar, because the nations surmised that we were blowing shofar for some nefarious purpose, and then the associated blessings were pushed from Shacharit to Mussaf. And even once the decrees were canceled, they did not want to return to the earlier practice. And it is explained there that when the nations saw that we recite Shema and then recite Shacharit and then read Torah and only then blow shofar they realize that the shofar blowing is just part of our ritual observance of the day and they are not concerned. (See Tosafot in contrast to Rashi there). And for this reason we blow shofar before Mussaf since we used to blow Shoafar during Shacharit along with the Malkhiot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot blessings that were also part of Shacharit at that time and they used to only blow then until it was pushed to Mussaf by persecution. And so, in order not to overly distance themselves form the original way of doing things, and to make the shofar blowing closer to Shacharit to honor the principle of acting with alacrity for mitzvah performance - for even though there was a decree against them, nonetheless they act with courge to do the mitzvah with even more earnestness and boldness. For earlier, before the decree, they only blew shofar once, and after the decree they blew shofar twice. And Satan is also confused in case the merit of these shofar blasts bring about the great shofar and he is not able to make accusations. And his accusations will be for naught since the Holy Blessed One sees just how much mitzvot are beloved by the=Jews.",
"And the custom is to blow shofar from the bimah, the place where the Torah is read, since we established shofar blowing for right after Torah reading on Rosh Hashanah morning. And the one who blows needs to recite the blessings and to blow shofar while standing and should not lean on anything. But, if he does blow while seated, he nonetheless fulfills the obligation for standing is not an indispensable detail of the mitzvah. And the congregation can sit even lechatchilah (from the outset). And the custom is to recite Psalm 47, which includes the phrase \"all your peoples, clap your hands,\" seven times before shofar blowing. And sometimes the ignorant people, when they don't finish reciting it seven times continue to recite it during the shofar blasts. And they need to be informed that it is forbidden to do this as they are obligated to listen to the shofar blasts and should not say anything at all during the shofar blowing. For Psalm 47 is not an actual mitzvah. And some omit it altogether for this reason. ",
"The one who blows shofar makes the blessing \"Blessed....who sanctified us with His Commandments and commanded us to hear the sound of the shofar\" for the mitzvah is in the hearing. And if one blows and does not hear, then he has not fulfilled his obligation whatsoever. And then he recites a \"SheHechiyanu\" blessing and the congregation responds \"amen\" to the two blessings. And one should be careful not to say \"Baruch Hu U'Varuch Shemo\" for that would be an interruption in the blessing. And even if the shofar blower has already fulfilled his obligation, he should make these blessings on behalf of those who hear him. But it would be better if the listeners make teh blessings and not the blower since he has already fulfilled his obligation - especially the \"she'hechiyanu\" blessing. But this is not the common practice. And nonetheless if one blows shofar for an individual, for example someone who is sick, it is best if the listener makes the blessings (cf Magen Avraham 3). And in particular if the blower is blowing on behalf of a woman or several women, who are personally exempt from the mitzvah of shofar, since it is a \"positive time-bound mitzvah\" but they have obligated themselves, it is certainly appropriate that they make the blessings for themselves rather than have the shofar blower make the blessings unless he too has not yet fulfilled his obligation. ",
"And then he should blow: Tekiah, Shevarim-Teruah, Tekiah three times. Then Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah three times. And then Tekiah, Teru'ah, Tekiah three times. And the reason will be explained in Section 590. See there for more. And the congregation should not interrupt by saying the \"Yehi Ratzon\" prayer in between the Tekiah, Shevarim-Teruah, Tekiah set and the Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah set and between the Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah set and the Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah set. And this is not how it is printed in machzorim. And it is good to blow shofar to the right side and not to the left since the right signifies mercy and the left signifies judgement. And some say that a left-handed shofar blower should blow to the left which is his \"right\" just like he wears tefilin on the opposite arm as right-handed people. And this is a questionable thing since he does this mitzvah on behalf of many people he should follow the \"right hand\" of the majority. However the Levush writes that according to Kabbalah it is better to blow towards the left and one can see there. And he should hold the shofar to his mouth angled a bit upward for the sake of the veres \"God rises with a teruah.\" And all these matters are not indispensable and no matter how the shofar is blown one fulfills the obligation. And anyone in doubt about whether or not he heard the shofar blasts should blow again without a blessing since blessings are never indispensable to mitzvah performance. And on the second day of Rosh Hashanah he does not have to blow again since it is a doubt concerning a rabbinic mitzvah and this is not a very common thing to doubt.",
"If the blower begins to blow but is not able to complete, someone else should complete on the support of the first berakhah, even if several shofar-blowers need to be swapped in. And this is true specifically when the replacement shofar blowers were present when the blessing was recited. And if not, they need to recite a blessing. Not only this, but even if the one making the blessing s not able to blow at all, his blessing is still not a wasted or null blessing and someone else can blow based on the blessing of the first blower.",
"And regarding the shofar blasts that accompany the blessings of Mussaf, the prayer-leader should not blow them but someone else should so that the prayer-leader will not become confused in his prayers. However, if he s certain that he will not be confused, and will be able to return to leading prayers, he is entitled to blow. And it is correct that the one who blows before Mussaf should be the one who blows during Mussaf, since when someone starts a mitzvah we tell them to complete it, unless it becomes too difficult for hm to blow in which case it not indispensable that he continue and blow during Mussaf. And the custom is to call to the shofar blower word for word so that he not err, and this is correct. And we select as the one who calls for the shofar blower someone who is great n Torah knowledge for according to Kabbalah this is a major matter. And one who receives money to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or to lead prayers, or to recite the translation of the Torah reading in communities where that is still done - will not see any blessing from that money, but there is no prohibition in this. And the essential intent of the one who blows the shofar and those who listen is to fulfill a positive mitzvah that the Holy Blessed One commanded to blow a shofar on Rosh Hashanah. And if he knows additional matters on this based on the Zohar, happy is his portion, but the essential intention is as I have written and no particular intention is akin to doing the mitzvah lishmah. [And see the Magen Avraham for a magical charm for when one cannot blow shofar: turn it upside down and call into it \"VaYehi Noam\" and see there, but do not do this for the tekiot that are before Mussaf for that would constitute an inappropriate interruption. And see Sha'arei Teshuvah.]"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"......",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Know that in the Rambam, in his Laws of Yom Kippur, this law of eating and drinking on the ninth does not exist. And ostensibly, the reason is simple: In Yoma, it's a Tannaic dispute regarding the interpretation of that verse. One of the Tannaim derives from that verse the concept of adding extra time to the day of Yom Kippur [by starting earlier than sunset]. Thus we have there: \"And you shall afflict your soul... on the ninth of the month...\" Do you really think one should start fasting on the ninth? The Torah therefore says, \"in the evening.\" But if it's the evening, one might think [this means] only once it gets dark? The Torah therefore says, \"on the ninth.\" How does one accomplish this? He shall start fasting while it is still day. From here we have the concept of adding from the non-holy day to the holy day... And [the gemara] questions this: But the Tanna who derives the concept of adding extra time to Yom Kippur from a different verse, what does he do with this verse? And [the gemara] answers: That anyone who eats and drinks of the ninth is as if he fasted for both days... And so the Rambam in Laws of Yom Kippur 1:6 writes, \"And one must add from the non-holy day onto the holy day... as it says, 'And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening,' meaning, you shall start to fast from the end of the ninth close to it...\" And since he uses this verse for the concept of adding time to Yom Kippur, he therefore doesn't use it for the derivation of \"Anyone who eats and drinks...\" And that's why he leaves it out.",
"But if so, why does the Rambam mention it in the Laws of Vows 3:9, \"One who vows to fast on Monday or Tuesday, and it turns out it is Yom Tov or Erev Yom Kippur, he is obligated to fast... If it turns out it is Chanukah or Purim, he should push off the fast [til afterward]. since it is a rabbinical prohibition to fast on those days, it needs bolstering [and therefore fasting on it to fulfill a vow is forbidden].\" It is explicitly implied that Erev Yom Kippur is forbidden to fast on from the Torah, like Yom Tov, and doesn't need bolstering. And that's how the commentators have understood his words.",
"I am very puzzled by this! If one thinks that the Rambam holds that it is forbidden to fast on Erev Yom Kippur on a Torah level, or even on a rabbinical level, and that one must eat on it and drink - how could he not mention it in the appropriate place, in the Laws of Yom Kippur, but instead rely on the fact he mentioned it by-the-by in the Laws of Vows, through the opposite fact where one would be obligated to fast [if one took a vow]. And so, it seems in my humble opinion that it is clear according to what I have said, that the Rambam discarded this law, as I wrote. And the fact that he wrote in the Laws of Vows that one is obligated to fast [if one took a vow for Erev Yom Kippur], the reason isn't because it is a Yom Tov, whether on a Torah level or close to it, and it doesn't even need bolstering. Just the opposite - [the reason one must fast on it if one took a vow to do so is] because there is totally no mitzvah to eat, either on a Torah level or rabbinical. That's why the vow takes effect. And the reason why it was mentioned at all is because the custom of everyone is to eat a lot on Erev Yom Kippur. And there is a Midrash of a tailor who spent much money for a fish on Erev Yom Kippur, brought by the Tur. And we find it similarly in the end of the 5th chapter of Chulin 83a that they would have much for meals on Erev Yom Kippur. And so that one will not be mistaken that there is some rabbinical mitzvah, and therefore the vow shouldn't take effect on that7 day like Chanukah and Purim - [the Rambam] teaches us that there is no rabbinical command at all, and the vow takes effect. And the Rambam is not alone on this, for I didn't find this law in the Rif and the Smag the command to eat on Erev Yom Kippur. And their reasoning is because that verse is used for adding time to Yom Kippur, see there."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"It is a positive biblical commandment to sit in the Sukkah for seven days, from the 15th of Tishrei until after the 21st of Tishrei, for it is written in Parashat Emor (Leviticus 23:34): \"On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD... Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall dwell in booths; that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt\" (Leviticus 23:42-43)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"\"for I caused Israel to dwell in Sukkot\" (Leviticus 23:43) --these were clouds of glory according to Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva says 'these were actual sukkot.' (Sukkah 11b). According to the position of Rabbi Eliezer, it is obvious that we would want to remember such a tremendous feat as being surrounded by the clouds of glory...for inside the clouds of glory God was revealed to all the people, as it says, \"You, O LORD, appear in plain sight when Your cloud rests over them and when You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.\"(Numbers 14:14) However, for Rabbi Akiva whose understands these to be physical sukkot, what is so great about these that the Torah instructs us to build them \"in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths\"? (Leviticus 23:43)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"In the diaspora we eat in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret, at night and during the day, for it is possibly truly the seventh day of Sukkot And we do not recite a blessing on sitting in the sukkah. And we do say a \"she'hechiyanu\" blessing during kiddush on Shimini Atzeret night since it is a distinct holiday. And, indeed this is the conclusion of the Gemara (Sukkah 47a) that we sit in the sukkah on the eigth day but do not recite a blessing on sitting in the sukkah. Nonetheless, we find in the halakhic writings many different customs: The Mordechai in the name of Ravyah writes that it is forbidden to sleep in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret because of \"bal tosif\" [the prohibition against adding to mitzvot]. For when it comes to eating in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret there is a means of distinguishing that Sukkot is over in the absense of the blessing on sitting in the sukkah. But when it comes to sleeping in the sukkah, what means of distinguishing could there be? (Magen Avraham). And even though this is not fully \"bal tosif\" as I wrote above in Siman 666 for \"bal tosif\" at the wrong time for the original mitzvah requires intention to violate the prohibition nonetheless it looks like \"bal tosif.\" Furthermore, in truth one is sitting in the sukkah to do a mitzvah out of doubt concerning the date and so some sort of distinguishing is needed since we truly do now the date of the month's start. And I will explain this in paragraph 5 with God's help.",
"And for this reason we leave the sukkah after our morning meal on Shimini Atzeret. And there are some who do not eat in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret at night but do eat in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret during the day but this is not a valid practice (Tur). And some will make kiddush and eat a little bit in the sukkah and then go home for their meal. And this practice was loudly criticized by many great scholars since the Gemara concludes that the halakhah is that we do sit in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret and if so we must sit in the sukkah all night and all day and we should also sleep in the sukkah without any distinction with the other days of Sukkot. ",
"However, according to my humble opinion there is a rationale for the custom of the Jewish people an the matter is all true it just requires explanation. For in truth the Gemara does conclude that we should sit in the sukkah, but our rabbis the Tosafists wrote there, and this is their language, \"they did not want to enact that the lulav should be taken as well on Shimini Atzeret out of doubt for Shimini Atzeret is yom tov and the lulav and etrog would be muktzah and taking it would be a problematic weekday activity. But regarding the sukkah, sometimes a sukkahi s a pleasant place to eat and one might eatin a sukkah even on yom tov that was not Sukkot.\" And the Tur writes and this is his language, \"it is not releavant to question sitting in the Sukkah on Shimini Atzeret as a problematic weekday activity since many times people sit in the shade of a sukkah.\" So it is clear that the essential permissibility of sitting in the Sukkah on Shimini Atzeret is due to there being no way to discern that one is sitting in the sukkah for mitzvah purposes but were it apparent that one was only sitting in the sukkah because of the command to sit in the sukkah it would not be permissible to do so on Shimini Atzeret.",
"And according to this, all is well. For certainly in warm climates like Babylonia, and the western and southern lands, where it is warm and mild during Sukkot, certainly they must eat and sleep in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret just like on Sukkot itself. But in northern lands like ours, where it is mostly cold on Sukkot, if one did not force oneself into the sukkah despite the cold, one would miss the mitzvah entirely. And we force ourselves to eat and sleep in the sukkah on Sukot and indeed, most avoid sleeping in the sukkah because of the cold as I wrote earlier. However, on Shimini Atzeret, where the sages commanded us to sit in the sukkah in a way that makes it clear we have no mitzvah to sit in the sukkah is something that is nearly impossible in our lands. Heaven forfend that we would ignore the enactment of the sages, but we still have to make it clear that we are not sitting in the sukkah out of obligation. This means that one who sleeps in the sukkah during Sukkot should not sleep in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret and one who does not sleep in the sukkah on Sukkot would now have no distinguishing feature and so must find some other distinguishing feature such as not eating in the sukkah at night or to eat part of his meal outside of the sukkah. These two distinguishing features are not ideal and it would be best to simply leave the sukkah after the daytime meal to show that the meal was not eaten in the sukkah for a mitzvah. And in this way all of the customs are upheld (and so it seems in my humble opinion)."
],
[],
[
"In the [time of] the second Temple when the evil Antiochuses lived, they made decrees against Israel and [forbade] their holy religion; they did not allow them to be engaged with Torah study and with the commandments; and they placed their hand on their money and on their daughters. And they entered the Temple and opened gaps [in its walls], made the pure things impure, caused pain to Israel and brought great duress upon them. Until the Lord, the God of their forefathers had mercy upon them and delivered them from their hand, and saved them through the holy and pure sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priests, Mattatyahu and his sons; who fought with Antiochus and were able [to win]. And the victory was not according to nature, as the Hasmoneans [together ] with a band of pious men were very few and Antiochus came against them with a large [group], with many elephants and with chariot and riders. However the Lord, who desires His people, Israel, 'delivered the mighty into the hand of the weak, the many into the hand of the few, the impure into the hand of the pure and the evildoers into the hand of the righteous.' And the renegades from Israel who appended themselves to Antiochus were also killed and delivered into the hand of those engaged in Torah study. And then the name of Heaven was magnified and sanctified in the world, the light of the Torah shone in its true purity and the name of Israel was magnified.",
"And the end of the miracle was on the 25th of Kislev. And another miracle was shown to them from the Heavens through the 'candle of the commandment and the Torah light.' As we have the text in Shabbat 21b that reads, \"What is Chanukkah, that our Sages taught: 'On the 25th of Kislev - the days of Chanukkah, they are eight, not to eulogize on them and not to fast on them?' When the Greeks entered the Temple, they polluted all the oils in the Temple, and when the Hasmonean dynasty overcame and defeated them, they checked and they found but one cruse of oil that was set in place with the seal of the High Priest, but there was in it only [enough] to light a single day. A miracle was done with it, and they lit from it for eight days. The following year [the Sages] fixed those [days], making them holidays for praise and thanksgiving.\" ",
"The explanation of these words: When they purified the Temple, they were all impure from defilement with corpses from the war. And someone impure from contact with corpses can only become pure after seven days - through the sprinkling [of purifying waters] on the third and seventh day. And [then] one [more] day [was needed] for the preparation of pure oil (Beit Yosef). And also, as the pure oil was at a distance of four days [sojourn], by the time they would go and come back, eight days would pass (Ran on Shabbat 21a). And they did not have what to light in the menorah. [It is true that] they sacrificed all of the daily sacrifices, since a communal sacrifice pushes off [the prohibition of sacrificing when the priests are in a state of] impurity. And therefore, they could have also lit the candles of the menorah for this reason, as it is taught [in a bereita] in Torat Cohanim, Parshat Emor, at the end of Parsha 13, \"'He shall arrange the candles in front of Me always' - 'always,' even on Shabbat; 'always' even in [a state of] impurity.\" However the oil had to be pure, as impurity is only rendered permissible for the community [in this context] with regards to the impurity from contact with corpses; but not other impurities, as is explained in Pesachim 67a. And the oil was made impure with [such] other impurities - though their touch and their being carried. And all of the olives were [similarly] made impure. [This situation lasted] until they attained [olives that were still] attached [to the tree], as they do not absorb impurity, and [so] eight days passed. And therefore, when they found this cruse sealed with the seal of the High Priest - and it had been placed in a deep location such that it was not raised up; as were this not so, it would have become impure through being raised up (Tosefot, Shabbat 21b), and also, had [the Greeks] seen [it], they would have certainly taken it, as it would have appeared that there were precious stones there (Ran, op.cit.) - the Holy One, blessed be He, made a miracle for them. As even though there was only enough [pure] oil for one day - they lit for eight days from it, until they made pure oil. And hence, they 'fixed eight days for praise and thanksgiving.' (And see Beit Chadash, but according to what I have written, it easily comes out fine.)",
"And even though the miracle was really for seven days - as there was enough in it to light for one day - nonetheless, since only one eighth of the oil was lit, it follows that the miracle was also on the first day (Beit Yosef). And there is someone (Shiltei Hagiburim citing Hagahot Mordechai?) who wrote, \"[Eight days are commemorated,] since they [forbade] the commandment of circumcision, which is for eight days.\" And there is one who wrote, [It is] because they then inaugurated the Temple for the service that the evil Antiochus had [forbidden] (Ibid.). ",
"And [the last reason] is the truth - as in the Midrash, it is found that the work of the tabernacle was finished on the 25th of Kislev, and they did not inaugurate it until the beginning of the month (Rosh Chodesh) of Nissan, when the forefathers had been born. And the Holy One, blessed be He, paid [Israel] back in the time of Mattityahu (this midrash is brought by Maharsha, Shabbat 21b). And hence they made it like the inauguration of the Tabernacle, which was [composed of] the seven days of installation and the eighth day, [which] was the completion of the beginning of the service in the Tabernacle by Aharon and his sons, as is explained in the Torah. And so [too] with King Shlomo, it is written in II Chronicles 7, \"And Shlomo made the holiday... seven days, and... on the eighth day was a convocation\" - see there. And hence to commemorate [this], they called this holiday Chanukah (inauguration) also, from the expression, chanukat hamizbeach (inauguration of the tabernacle) and chanukat habayit (inauguration of the Temple). And with this, there is also an allusion to the 25th day: chanu (they inaugurated) kah [which is made up of the letters kaf and hey, which together represent the number twenty-five] (Ran, op.cit.). And another reason for this is elucidated in the Book of the Maccabees: Since, as a result of the decrees, they were stopped from bringing the sacrifices of the holiday of the past Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret. And hence, to commemorate this, they made the eight days of Channukah. And [it followed] that when from the Heavens they were shown the miracle of the oil - 'They' showed them that 'They' agreed to them making eight days. (And this is [the meaning of] what they wrote in Shabbat, op.cit., \"The following year, they fixed, etc.;\" meaning to say, after they saw that there was agreement to them from the Heavens to make eight days - through the oil that 'They' showed them [stay] lit for eight days. And in commemoration of this miracle, they fixed that candles be lit on Channukah, as was written by Tur.) ",
"",
"",
"",
"The increasing of the number of meals that we partake in [on Chanukah] are ‘voluntary meals’ [as opposed to meals which are a mitzvah], because [the Sages] did not set [the days of Chanukah] for drinking and rejoicing, as they did on Purim. [This is because] the decree of Haman was on the body, to destroy, kill, and wipe out [all of the Jews] (Esther 3:13), therefore, we need to celebrate with our bodies. But the decree of Antiochus was abolition of Torah learning and mitzvot, and even though this is worse than a decree of physical [annihilation], nevertheless, they were decrees against our souls. Therefore, we need to gladden our souls with Hallel, thanks, melodies, songs and praises, and the body has no connection to these [methods of rejoicing]. (And this also answers the question of the Taz 670:3 [who asked that if it is worse to cause one to sin rather than kill him per Rashi Devarim 23:9, why do we not celebrate this holiday more than, or at least equally to, Purim?]) However, there are those who say [Rama Orach Chaim 670:2, in the name of Rabbi Avraham Kara of Prague] that there is a slight mitzvah to increase the number of meals, first, because celebration of the soul is somewhat dependent on the happiness of the body, as we can sense. Additionally, [we rejoice physically] to remember the dedication of the Mishkan, which was set as [a holiday of] drinking and rejoicing. One should also sing songs and praises at these meals, and then it will certainly be considered a ‘mitzvah meal’. But those who play with cards-their punishment is great, and due to our many sins, this plague of tzara’athas spread through the house of Israel. Woe to us that this has happened in our days, and many types of sins are caused by this activity! And may He, the merciful, forgive sin, and one who has the ability to abolish this [practice], his merit will be very great. "
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"(1) On Friday, one should light the Hanukkah light before the Shabbat light. And it does not matter whether one accepts Shabbat through lighting the Shabbat light, in which case it is forbidden to light anything else, but even if one does not accept Shabbat through lighting, nevertheless, one cannot light Shabbat lights before the Hanukkah light, because it is inappropriate after lighting Shabbat lights to do profane work.... Legally, one may light Shabbat lights first, but it is better to light Hanukkah lights first .... ",
"(2) It is true that the RaSHBA, z\"l, in a responsum (Part I, #1070), ruled that one should light Shabbat lights first, because \"frequent and infrequent -- frequent goes first.\" And I'm surprised, because the Gemara says explicitly that, if one lacks both [wine for] kiddush and Hanukkah lights, Hanukkah lights takes priority, because of publicizing the miracle, over kiddush that is frequent. It must be that he [RaSHBA] was of the view that this [Talmudic ruling] addressed the situation where one of the practices would be omitted entirely, and did not address which should be performed first [when both could be performed], and that the Tosafot were also of this view. And one can explain further, that on Friday, when one lights while it is still daytime, the consideration of publicizing the miracle does not yet apply.",
"(3) Nevertheless, the established practice in all corners of the Jewish world is to light Hanukkah lights before Shabbat lights, because our women accept Shabbat through their lighting [Shabbat lights]. And even a man who lights, when it is explicit that he is not accepting Shabbat, and in such way [lighting Shabbat lights first] would be permissible even according to the BH\"G, he should still light Hanukkah lights first...."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"Our rabbis, the Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Ran, all wrote that the essence of the mitzvah of reading the megilah and publicizing the miracle is during the day and not at night, as it says \"I call out each day\" that is to say, even though I call out during the day, which is the essential reading, nonetheless, I will not be silent at night. And the essential meal of Purim is also during the day and so too Mishloach Manot. As it says, \"and these days shall be remembered and performed.\" The verse juxtaposes remembering and doing. Just as we do the mitzvot during the day, we remember and recite during the day. Therefore in the Mishnah at the end of the second chapter of Megilah it is taught \"the entire day is valid to read megilah.\" And at night it does not teach that the entire night is valid to read megillah because the essential reading is during the day (Rosh). And for this reason, even though we recite the blessing \"She'hechiyanu\" on reading the megilah at night we repeat it during the day for the essential reading is during the day. But the Rambam truly rules in the first chapter of Laws of Megilah that we do not repeat the \"shehechyanu\" blessing during the day and this will be explained in Section 692."
]
],
"Yoreh De'ah": [
[
"Shechita (Ritual slaughtering as dictated in Jewish Law) is a \"positive\" mitzvah. Shecita is not obligatory (as the case with obligations of Shofar, Succah and Lulav) since if one does not want to eat meat, there is no need to shecht (slaughter) . However, if someone does want to eat meat- there is an obligation to eat the animal only after shechting it, as the verse says, \"You shall sacrifice your cattle and sheep like you have been commanded\"(Deut. 12:21). Similarly, the shechita of a wild animal (that is kosher) is dictated by Torah law as the verse says regarding a firstborn animal that has a blemish, \"...the same way he will eat the deer and the buck\" (Deut. 12:22). One learns from this that a wild animal is alike to a domesticated animal in terms of Shechita (See the Sifrei HaMitzvos of the Rambam and the Smag). Furthermore, the shechita of birds is dictated by the Torah since the verse says, \"that he will hunt a hunted animal or bird and will pour its blood\" (Lev. 17:13). It is concluded from this verse that the pouring of the blood of a bird (which is part of the shechita process of that bird) is the same as that of an animal (see Sifri on Parshas Re'eh). It was taught by Bar Kafra- \"This is the set of rules for the animal and the bird and anything that lives in the water\" (Lev. 11). 'The bird' has been placed in between 'the animal' and 'anything that lives in the water'...",
"All the laws of Shechita were told to Moshe Rabbenu orally at Sinai like all of the Oral law, as it is written \" you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you, as I have instructed you (Deuteronomy.12.21)\" This mitzvah is apart of the oral tradition. It is taught in a baraita: \"Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse teaches that Moses was previously commanded about the halakhot of slaughter, even though they are not written explicitly in the Torah. He was commanded about cutting the gullet and about cutting the windpipe, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one siman for a bird, and the majority of two simanim for an animal.\" (According to Tosfot), Rebbe finds an allusion to this in the word \"כאשר\". The \"Alef\" (achad) alludes to one siman in a bird, the \"Shin\" (Shtayim) alludes to two simanim in an animal, and the \"Resh\" (Rubo) alludes to the majority of one is like the whole. Furthermore, the word כאשר is the reverse acrostic of רובו של אחד כמוהו the majority of one is like the whole."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"The Beis Yosef writes; discarded meat that was found in a marketplace, we go by the majority (of what it likely could have come from), as whatever is separated from something else is presumed to have come from the majority (of what it is likely to have come from). He means to say that if most of the sellers are Non-Jews, the meat is forbidden. If the majority of sellers are Jews the meat is permitted. Similarly, meat in the hands of a Non-Jew that we don’t know where he got from; if most of the sellers (in the town) are Jews it is permitted. This is all by Torah Law, but the Rabbanim have since forbidden all meat that is merely found, whether in a marketplace or in the hands of a Non-Jew, even if all the sellers and butchers are Jews. Not only that, but even someone who buys meat and leaves it in his house and it becomes hidden from his eyes (I.e he’s not watching over it) is also forbidden, unless the meat has a distinguishing mark or it has a certain look to it that he recognizes enough to be certain that it is the same piece of meat or it was wrapped and sealed (the entire time). If one hung a pot that was full of pieces of meat and the pot broke, and it had no distinguishing mark or distinct look, it is forbidden to eat the meat as it is possible to say that the meat that had been in the pot was dragged away by a wild animal or creeping creature and the meat that is there right now is different meat. These are the words of the Beis Yosef. And all of this is the same language as the Rambam in Perek Ches Halachah Yud Gimmel Machalos Assuros see there further.",
"He further writes; if it was hanging on a peg or something similar, where it would be impossible for a creeping creature to take from it or put into it would be permitted. Some permit meat that was hidden from the eye if it was found in the same place he put it, and our teacher the Rema writes; and the custom is to be lenient like the second opinion and even if the meat was in the hand of a Non-Jew, in a place where all the sellers are Jews that sell meat it would be permitted, these are his words.",
"The explanation of the matter is in the Gemara (95); Rav said, meat that was hidden from the eye is forbidden since some time passed where he did not see the meat; even if it was on his table we are concerned that it got switched for a piece of nevielah (non-kosher meat) and even in a city where most of the butchers are Jews. For we are concerned that crows brought a piece of nevielah from the outside world and switched it. This is just a stringency. And so to it is explained in Yerushalmi Shekalim (7:5) that when Rav went to Bavel he saw them being careless with forbidden things and he was stringent on them to forbid meat that was hidden from the eye.",
"But, according to this, the Gemara is not understandable. It questions Rav from many Mishnaiyos that when meat is in the hand of a Non-Jew it is permitted if most of the butchers are Jewish? Gemara answers that what is in a Non-Jew’s hand is less of a problem than what is hidden from the eye because the meat in his hand is presumed to have been watched, he (presumably) didn’t slaughter it, and Trefiah animals aren't sold to him. However, meat that was hidden from the eye we have to be concerned that the meat was switched by crows. What, however, even was its question as it was Rav himself who innovated this decree because they weren’t being careful with forbidden things. If so, what relevance is there to ask questions from Mishnaiyos (which came before Rav’s time)? You are forced to say that our Gemara does not hold like the Yerushalmi Gemara but rather holds that Rav holds that its forbidden not from the Torah but from the decree of the Sages that made the decree previously and therefore its question make sense.",
"According to this, there is a question to be had on the Rambam, who is stringent even when it is found in the hand of a Non-Jew while the Gemara is in fact lenient about this. Many of his commentaries have already asked this question on his words and answered that the Rambam rules like the Yerushalmi which is stringent in all cases. However according to the Yershualmi’s explanation, the sugya of our Gemara does not make sense. There are some who explain that the when the Gemara permits what is found in the hand of a Non-Jew, that is only in a place where they announce if there is a treifah in the market or not. When there is no announcement, this is a sign that there was no treifah around as is explained in the Gemara (94) that in their days there were places that announced such things. Therefore, Rambam forbids it because in his days they did not make such announcements anywhere and we are therefore concerned there was/had been a treifah in the market that was sold to this Non-Jew. This is an even more bewildering answer as in such case it would certainly be forbidden from the Torah itself and even if it were permitted by the Torah because of the reason that we pressume most animals are kosher, even so, if it were to be that the distinction is dependent between places that announce it and places that don’t, the Gemara should’ve answered its question that way. Furthermore, the Rambam is certainly referring even to a case where we know for certain the Non-Jew purchased kosher meat from the market for he does not make any distinction in the matter and he writes that even if all of the sellers are Jewish so no other type of meat is around at all it is still forbidden. The opinion of the Rambam is the same as the opinion of the other Gaonim as the Rishonim wrote, may they be blessed.",
"The root of the matter does not make sense to me, for the truth of the matter is that we find many arguments between the Yerushalmi and our Gemara. Still in a case like this, where in the Yerushalmi in two places is clear that the matter was known that Rav decreed this thing because they were lenient about prohibited things in Bavel and this was not one of the decrees that the Chachamim had already decreed beforehand, why does our Gemara not consider it until it asked from the previously mentioned mishnaiyos. And it is even stranger that our sugya of Gemara, on this saying that Rav said in regards to meat hidden from the eye, says that Rav did not say this saying explicitly but it was borne out from a story. Rav saw a man bathing the head of an animal in the river and it fell into the river. He brought a utensil and threw it into the water and brought up two heads. He wanted to eat both of them but Rav rebuked him and prohibited them. The Gemara pushes aside this proof and says that this is not a proof for in actual halacha they were prohibited because it happened in a place of Non-Jews where Treifos are more common than kosher ones, see there. We find throughout Shas when sayings like this aren’t said explicitly but are rather are borne out of proof from someplace else and it pushes off the proof, it voids the saying entirely. Here, it strangely does not void the saying because it asks afterwords how Rav would ever eat meat even in regard to Jews? See there. "
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"It's forbidden to cook [meat] in a woman's milk because of Maris Ayin. If it fell into a [meat] dish, it is nullified and there is no need to measure, as written by the Rashba. The Rama writes on this, in paragraph 4 (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, Chapter 87): \"And it appears that because of this, all the more so it is prohibited to cook [pure meat] in impure milk, or impure meat in pure milk, before the fact, specifically meat of domesticated mammals. But for fowl, which is only rabbinically prohibited, one need not worry [about Maris Ayin].\" There are some that disagree on this, saying specifically, things that are permissible to eat one should be wary of Maris Ayin, where as one need not worry about something that is prohibited from eating. Furthermore, how can you prohibit a thing that the sages of the Talmud explicitly permitted [cooking impure meat in pure milk or pure meat in impure milk], and it's pushing it to say that this is only [permitted] in a place where there is no Maris Ayin. After all, all prohibitions based on Maris Ayin stand even in private rooms. Theoretically you could distinguish between the two, in any case, it's not sensible to say this. It's also pushing it to say that the mishnah and gemara neglected to discuss the prohibition of Maris Ayin. The Rashaba himself wrote in his writings that impure [meat or milk] are permissible to be cooked. However it's difficult to be lenient after the Rama said this. Obviously for healing, there is no need to worry at all."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"17. And know that the disagreement between the Rambam, the Rashba, and the Tur that we wrote about in section 12 is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, Nazir chapter 1 and in the Babylonian Talmud, Erachin chapter 2, as the Rambam ruled there. Rabbi Zeira said: \"Anyone who gives a reason, he is not lashed until he tastes the taste of the prohibition itself.\" Even if he did not taste the taste of the prohibition itself, Rabbi Ba bar Mamal said: \"All those who give a reason, there is no prohibition, and the permitted and the prohibited are combined.\" A Mishnah supports this ruling, and so on. A Mishnah supports Rabbi Zeira's ruling regarding a case where a piece of the size of an olive of wine fell into a pot, and he ate from it a piece the size of an olive, and he is exempt until he eats the entire pot, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ba bar Mamal, since he ate a piece the size of an olive from it. He is liable for every piece of an olive from it only because the permitted is combined with the prohibited. But due to the reason as the main thing, he is not liable until he eats an olive's worth of the prohibited food, and we do not say that the permitted becomes entirely prohibited. This is the case regarding the reason as the main thing in Nazir, and similarly in every prohibition. What is the reason for the difference? Furthermore, since the Rashba wrote the same ruling based on the reason as the main thing, as Rashi stated in Pesachim 44b, \"And if he ate a piece the size of a Pras of it, which is equivalent to four eggs, and so on, he is exempt.\" See there.",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"25. And our Rabbi the Rama wrote that nowadays we do not rely on estimation and everything is calculated based on sixty. There are several reasons for this according to the main law: Firstly, we must consider the opinion of Rashi that estimation is not effective unless it is significantly more than sixty. Secondly, since most of the halachic authorities agree that estimation is not necessary when dealing with sixty or more, and we only consider Rashi's opinion when dealing with less than sixty. This is also the opinion of the Ramban, the Rashba, and the RAN as we wrote in section 2. Additionally, there are concerns especially when relying on the word \"like\" (כמו) and kafeila (קפילא) which is not common in all places. Furthermore, according to what he ruled himself later, when it comes to the same type of things, we rely on the substance itself and not on the reason behind it, as will be explained later. Therefore, estimation is not applicable in this case, because estimation is only effective when it is based on a reason [and therefore, this raises questions in the Talmud when it relied on kafeila, and it can only be explained in cases where they were divided also in the reason and the substance].",
"26. Mixtures of a prohibited and permissible species of the same kind according to Torah law is nullified by majority. Some say according to the language of the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah we require a ratio of two permissible to one prohibited species for nullification. Similarly, in the language of the Talmud, in tractate Chullin, it states \"one in two\" is nullified, but this is not accurate, as this is the language used. In truth, if the permissible species outweighs the prohibited species by even a small amount, the prohibition is nullified by the majority. This was also decided by later authorities and is found in several places in the Talmud, where it says \"and nullified by the majority.\" There are those who want to differentiate between liquid and solid mixtures, but this is not a fundamental disagreement, and anyone who does so is mistaken. According to Torah law, there is no distinction between liquid and solid mixtures of the same species, since the reason for nullification by majority is that the prohibited species does not contribute any taste to the mixture. It is only because the sages forbade solid mixtures that contain a taste of the prohibited species until they are sixty times the amount of the permissible species, as will be explained in chapter 109. However, regarding mixtures of the same species, the sages did not make such a decree for solid mixtures because they will never lead to a Torah prohibition. Nonetheless, the opinion of Tosafot in Pesachim (44a) is that even in mixtures of different species, also dry in dry solid mixtures are prohibited by Torah law until they are sixty times the amount of the prohibited species.",
"27. And the opinion of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, is that in every case of a mixture of the same species it is forbidden from the Torah even in a small measure, and this is because of what is written in Zevachum, 78a, Rabbi Judah and the sages disagreed about whether a species within its own kind is nullified or not. Rabbi Yehuda believed that a species within its own kind is not nullified, while the sages believed that it is nullified. Several Amoraim held the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while others held the opinion of the sages. Therefore, Rashi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion (Chullin 109). However, all of our Rabbis disagreed with him, and the halacha is in accordance with the sages' opinion. This is also the opinion of the Rambam in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot (15:18), as is implied by his words there. He explains that a species within its own kind is not nullified by Torah law, even dry with dry, which is not in accordance with the opinion of the Tur that we brought earlier. He also explains there that there are prohibitions, such as that of yein nesach and tevel, which are stricter than the prohibition of a species within its own kind. In the case of yein nesach, the stringency is due to the severity of the prohibition, and in the case of tevel, the reason is that it is considered like the meat of an unslaughtered animal. The Rambam also wrote that in the Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim (9:1), and this is also implied in our Talmud in Nedarim 59, that the reason why the prohibition of a species within its own kind is so strict is because one slaughtering permits the entire animal, and therefore the prohibition applies to all cases. The reason for the Rambam's opinion is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim (9:1), and the Tosafot there explain that both reasons are necessary.",
"28. The idea that the taste of a species with its own kind is nullified by a majority is explained in the Talmud (Menachot 22a). We derive from the service of Yom Kippur, as it is written, \"And he shall take of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger upon the cover on the east side, and in front of the cover he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times\" (Leviticus 16:14). It is well known that the blood of the bull is more plentiful than that of the goat, and therefore the Torah calls it the blood of the goat. From this, we can conclude that the blood of the bull does not nullify the blood of the goat. Rabbi Yitzchak infers from here that the taste of its species is not nullified, but the Rabbis hold that the reason is that all the sacrifices brought to the altar do not nullify each other due to its holiness. They explain that if the reason for not nullifying the taste is due to it being the same species, then the Torah should have taught us about a case that does not come to the altar. However, since the Torah taught about a case that does come to the altar, we can infer that even the taste of its species is nullified. The Talmud implies that the Sages learned from this verse that similar kinds are nullified, and so too does the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol in his commentary on the positive commandments (mitzvah #138) and the Rashba in his work on the laws of the Temple (Beit HaBechirah, Shaar Aleph).",
"29. However, Rashi, may his memory be a blessing, wrote the reason as \"after the majority\" to indicate [in the case of mixing forbidden and permitted foods] [Beitzah 3b; Chullin 98b] and so did Tosafot in Avodah Zarah [67], and the Rosh in Chulin [7:37]. And these are his words, that the decree of the verse is that it is written \"after the majority\" to indicate that if one part of a mixture is nullified in the majority, the prohibition is transformed into permission and it is permitted to eat them even if they are all mixed together. And the Rabbis added a stringency [by not relying on nullification in the majority] as explained elsewhere. However, in my humble opinion, the matter is not understood at all. What is the connection between \"after the majority\" and mixing forbidden and permitted foods? In Chulin [11a], we learn from \"after the majority\" to mean according to the majority, as we find in Sanhedrin and the nine stores. It is obvious in Sanhedrin that the minority is nullified as if it does not exist, since the minority says the opposite of the majority, and these two things cannot coexist. But here [in the case of mixing foods], both exist in the world. And similarly with the nine stores, we say that what is found is from the majority, and there are no non-kosher animals here. But if non-kosher animals were nullified among the kosher animals, it would be derived from what is learned throughout the Talmud, that we follow the majority and there is no prohibition here. What does this have to do with mixing? And granted, according to the opinion of the Rashba that will be explained in Siman 109, it is forbidden to eat them all together, but we can say that we rely on the fact that whoever eats from it relies on the majority, and regarding the last one [in the mixture] we say that it is from the majority and the prohibition has already been eaten, as will be explained there. But the Rosh permits eating them all together, and that the prohibition has been transformed into permission, and it is not possible to explain our Sages as compelling [to any of these opinions].",
"30. It seems to me that the main point of the drasha is not from the blood of the bull and goat, but because in the Gemara they challenged the Rabbis saying that we should say \"until there is a species within its own species\", and this is difficult. This means that perhaps even if they are of the same species, if they are brought as offerings separately they nullify each other, but if they are brought together they do not nullify each other. This was accepted by the Geonim, that no matter what the Gemara says, a difficulty is not an absolute difficulty. Similarly, with the \"balah\" (animal that dies naturally) we should be precise with the Rabbis, how to learn from here that an animal of its own species nullifies it. The Torah needed to teach us that two offerings of the same species do not nullify each other, but it is not necessary to say the opposite, that even without offerings they nullify each other. And there is no reason to learn from here that offerings of different species nullify each other, because according to the Rabbis all offerings are of the same species, as will be explained. And also, the main lesson of Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis from this verse needs to be understood - doesn't the Torah command us to do so? So what new teaching does this verse come to teach us?",
"31. Therefore, it seems that our sages were precise in their wording when they said that it should have been written \"and take from the blood of the bull and the goat,\" and yet it is written \"and from the blood of the goat,\" to teach us that one should not think that the blood of the goat is nullified in the blood of the bull. Therefore, we need to understand why we have a lesson on this and why the Torah needed to state it explicitly, as it is not sufficient to say that it is not nullified, since this is already known. Rather, this is included in another category of cases, where the Torah wanted to emphasize that it is not nullified, as it is important for many halachic rulings. Here we have two things that we need to consider in what is not nullified: the first is that it is of the same type as the other thing, meaning that two equal things add to each other's strength and are not nullified, as the Ran explains in Nedarim 52a. The second is that both are equal in their holiness and both are permissible, and we could say that specifically when these two things are together, they are not nullified, but separately, one may nullify the other, as the Gemara states in Zevachim regarding the Rabbanan and Rabbi Yehuda. However, there is another interpretation in Zevachim 81a that explains that this is referring to sacrificial offerings, and if other sacred blood is mixed with it, it is still permitted. Therefore, it is possible that there is another interpretation to teach us that even if one of them is not related to the other, it is not nullified, and only when both are not related to each other, like different species or different sacrificial offerings, it would be nullified, as Tosafot explains in Kiddushin. See there."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"...The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state.",
"The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state.",
"The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state.",
"The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state."
],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"All of these beverages that we've discussed - this permissibility is only if there is no concern of an admixture of wine, such as beer or honey-drink, and other similar beverages. But types of beverages that there might be a concern of an admixture of wine - such as apple-wine or pomegranate-wine and other similar drinks - if they are in a place where wine is cheaper or even if it's not cheaper, but the beverages are improved through the addition of wine (Priest’s Lips §6) - if there's only this concern, then it is forbidden to buy it from a gentile until it is known that there is no admixture of wine. And even if there is an admixture of wine, but know that the wine is nullified 1 in 60 parts, then it is also permissible. And there are those who say that it doesn't require 60, but that it is sufficient to have a 1:6 ratio, as it is written in Section 134 of the Shulhan Arukh that wine in water is nullified 1:6 and this is the rule with other beverages (Gold Rows §4), although the first opinion opines that it is only nullified in water 1:6, but requires 60 parts in other beverages (Abraham's Shield Section 204 §16)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"And this is the language of the Tur: The Ittur writes that were I not afraid of other rabbis I would say that even a earthenware pot that has not been used for 24 hours since it is only a rabbinic prohibition to cook with it, can be kashered through immersion in boiling water three times and this is sufficient. And the Ittur brings proof from the Yerushalmi (Terumot 11:4). And the Rashba writes teh same thing and concludes his words by saying that perhaps this is only permissible with a rabbinic prohibition that has no basis in a Torah prohibition like Terumah or Challah outside of Israel in our times or with bishul akum (food cooked by Gentiles) but for other rabbinic prohibitions that do have a Torah basis they were strict just as with Torah prohibitions and it is appropriate to be concerns and not be lenient. All of the above is the language of the Tur. And so this leniency is entirely unmentioned in the Shulhan Arukh except for a reference in Siman 113 regarding bisul akum (food cooked by Gentiles) see there. And the Rashba in Torah haBayit discusses this at great threngh and writes that whenit comes to the strict law it appears to him that all rabbinic prohibitions should be permissible under these circumstances as the RaSh HaTzarfati writes and see there. And the Tur didn't bring the end of the Rashba's words because he was of the opinion that one should not be lenient in this way in a practical fashion. And, heaven forfend we should not violate the opinion of the Tur and Shulhan Arukh, however this is very puzzling since the Yerushalmi in Pesachim (3:1) says that when it comes to Hametz, which certainly has a foundation in Torah and the Yerushalmi there says: Rabbi Yirmiyah saidi n the name of Rav, a pot in which hametz was cooked should not be used for the same type of food until after Pesach, but a different food can be cooked in that pot even on Pesach if three items were cooked in between. And the commentator has already raised this question."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"..",
"9. Regarding the laws of a zavah, she is permitted to immerse even on the seventh day, and there is no need to wait until nightfall. Although if she sees blood until nightfall, she conceals everyone who is clean, as mentioned in Siman (Chapter) 196. However, from the perspective of immersion, it is allowed to immerse, as it is written: \"And she shall count for herself seven days, and after that, she may be purified\" (Leviticus 15:28). Once her counting is completed, she becomes pure [Rashi, Pesachim 90b]. On the seventh day, her counting is complete. If she truly sees blood, she conceals, and both the counting and purification are nullified. Thus, she is as if she did not immerse, and she needs other clean individuals and another immersion. However, for a Niddah, her immersion is nothing until nightfall. After the seven days of her menstruation, as it is written: \"For seven days, she shall be in her menstrual impurity; and on the eighth day, she shall be clean\" (Leviticus 15:19). It is meant to be understood that throughout these seven days until their completion, she is in her menstrual impurity. If she immerses, her immersion is nothing, and, therefore, she must necessarily immerse at night after the seven days of her menstruation. Regarding a woman who has given birth, she is compared to a Niddah. As it is written: \"Like the days of her menstrual impurity, she shall be impure\" (Leviticus 12:2). This applies only in her designated time. However, if it is not in her designated time, for example, on the day after the eighth day, she may immerse during the day or night, as the seven days of her impurity have already concluded [Siman 196, Shulchan Aruch].",
"10. All of the aforementioned is according to Torah law, but the Sages prohibited a woman experiencing abnormal uterine bleeding (Zavah) from immersing on the seventh day lest it lead to confusion. Perhaps her husband might mistakenly assume that, since she immersed, she is already pure, and he may have relations with her during the day. Later, if she sees blood, she will conceal it from those who are clean, nullifying the immersion. Consequently, it would seem that she immersed, became pure, and subsequently had relations while being a Zavah, which incurs the severe penalty of Karet. Therefore, she may not immerse until nightfall [Niddah 57b]. Similarly, the Sages prohibited a Niddah from immersing on the seventh day when it is not her designated time. Even though it is permitted according to Torah law, the Sages were concerned that she might be confused. For instance, if a woman, such as her daughter or relative, immerses on the seventh day, and the Niddah does not distinguish between the seventh day and other days, she may come to immerse on the seventh day of her own impurity. Since immersion during her designated time is meaningless, the Sages forbade a Niddah from immersing on the seventh day, even when it is not her designated time, during the day. They permitted immersion only at night. This is explained in the Talmud [Niddah 57b], which states: \"Whether during her designated time or not during her designated time, a Niddah does not immerse except at night, because of the proximity of her daughter,\" as we explained. It is not specifically limited to her daughter; this is self-evident.",
"11."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"It is written further there: If the son knows that his father and mother are disappointed by what he has chosen to fast over – he may not undertake a fast that is not obligatory. And a father that was sick, and the doctors ordered that he should not eat this certain food or he should not drink this certain drink, and the father requested that his son give this to him – the son does not give this to him. And even if the father says to him “I will not forgive you if you do not give this to me” – the son should not take any notice of him. Since the doctors had warned him about it – it is impossible to give it to him. And if the mother commanded something of her son, and the father asked the son, “What did she say to you?”, and the son knows that telling him the truth will make him angry at her – he should not tell him what she commanded. It is permitted to depart from the truth in a matter that will bring peace."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"One must hire a tutor for their son unless they are teaching them themselves...But the son of one's fellow - one is not obligated to pay for him on his own, but rather the community of residents is to make a Talmud Torah, as I have written. And we force him to pay his son's teacher. And if the father is out of town and has means, if we can, we inform him that he needs to pay, and if we can't inform, we take from his account and hire a tutor for his son .And for one's grandson, great-grandson - we force him to pay for his studies when he is able to and the child's parents are not able to, or if he doesn't have parents...And thus, we force all city residents to establish/maintain a Talmud Torah, to place tutors there to teach the poor and orphan children. And we force this that everyone should give a donation or from the communal fund. And every city that does not have a Talmud Torah - it's end will be in destruction and we should separate from it...And this was the custom across all of Israel - that there would be Talmud Torah schools, and the poor and orphan kids would go there, and the school would feed and dress the kids until they matured.",
"And lest he say: Since every city has a general Talmud Torah, if so, how could it be that a father is forced to hire a tutor for his son? Behold! The father will say, \"My son will go to the Talmud Torah since I am supporting it with Tzedakah, let me son go there!\" And the answer to this: Certainly, when the father is poor, he can say this. But average joes and all the more so, rich people - they cannot have their children go to the Talmud Torahs unless they give a lot of money. This is good for the poor kids, according to the assessment of the collectors. But without this extra money, we do not allow them, for if these chiildren come to the Talmud Torah, there will not be enough space for teh poor kids. And this we teach and bring Halacha L'Maaseh."
]
],
"Even HaEzer": {
"": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"One may not send regards to a woman whatsoever, even by means of a messenger, and even by means of her husband it is forbidden to send her regards, but it is permitted to ask her husband of her welfare. And the reason that one may not send regards to a woman is because maybe through sending her regards, even through a messenger, they will become acquainted with one another and come to affection [Rashi]. And according to this, the prohibition is only with sending regards that causes mental closeness and love, but to say \"good morning\" or the like - it seems that it isn't forbidden. And to ask someone else how a certain woman is doing, some say that this is only allowed by means of her husband and not by means of anyone else [Chelkat Mechokek], and some permit it [Bach]. And to ask a woman about the welfare of another woman is allowed [Maharsha]; and there are those who want to forbid this because the voice of a woman is nakedness, but that isn't seemly, because normal speech isn't prohibited with women, only a sweet voice where the listener benefits from it. And to write in a letter \"send regards to your spouse\" or \"and tell your wife greetings\" - it is prohibited, because this is sending regards through her husband, but to ask about her welfare in a letter - it is permitted, because he is asking her husband how she is faring. And as to his daughter and his daughter-in-law and his sister - it seems that it isn't forbidden whatsoever to send regards to them because causing mental closeness isn't pertinent, because it is the way of the land that a father sends regards to his children, and it is an obligation on him, and likewise a brother to his sister. And the bottom line of these concepts is that everything is dependent on astuteness and fear of heaven, and if his impulses are submissive and compliant to him and nothing gets aroused in his heart whatsoever - there isn't a concern about sending regards [Ritva], and therefore we found by Elisha that he said to his attendant \"run now to call her and tell her 'peace to you'\", although from there there is no proof, because everything was done because of (prophetic) speech, for he was a prophet."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"A betrothed woman is considered married (lit. the wife of a man) completely, and one who intentionally has intercourse with her (a betrothed woman) is subject to the death penalty; the penalty here is stricter than (in the case of one who has intercourse with) a married woman, for with a married woman it (the penalty) is strangulation, and with a betrothed woman it is stoning.
One who has betrothed (a woman) cannot free himself from (lit. dismiss) her except with a “get”.
Nonetheless, it is prohibited for one to have intercourse with his betrothed before (the ceremony known as) “ḥupah”. This is what the Men of the Great Assembly established in the marriage benedictions: “And He prohibited to us (for intercourse) those (merely) betrothed”, so that one would not have intercourse with his betrothed before “ḥupah” and (there) reciting the benedictions. This is a rabbinic prohibition, similar to their injunction regarding (intercourse) with an unmarried (single) woman. Therefore, one who has intercourse with his betrothed while (she is still) in his father-in-law’s house (i.e. before the marriage ceremony) must receive the “rabbinic lashes”.
And so did the sages say: “A bride without (before the marriage) benediction is as prohibited to her husband as is a menstruant” (Tractate Kallah). The sages also prohibited “yiḥud” with her, similar to their injunction regarding “yiḥud” with an unmarried woman (Bet Josef). And similarly, a “negotiated-for” woman (i.e. before betrothal) is prohibited from having “yiuḥud” with her “negotiator”, for all women prohibited from intercourse are (also) prohibited from “yiḥud” (Ḥelkat Mḥokek).
Therefore, there are those who say that they should not dwell together (in the same house) so that they will not grow tired of each other. There is even a suspicion (as to whether or not they should be alone together even) after the preliminary arrangements (have been made) but before the betrothal.
And more than (just) this, there is suspicion that they may not (be able to) control their (sexual) desires, and (thereby) sin. And not only this, but perhaps they might perform a prohibited act which carries the “karet” punishment, for she may be a menstruant if she is of age.
Therefore (it should be remembered that) the fear of (respect for) God’s word will keep one far from this and similar things (type of sin).",
"Even if he has betrothed (sanctified) her by intercourse, he is prohibited from having intercourse with her a second time until the time of marriage, for it is established for us that intercourse constitutes (legal) betrothal, but not marriage, as was explained in Chapter 33.
Marriage is (legally, the ceremony know as) the “ḥupah”, although the Halakhic authorities (lit. the Poskim) differed (in their opinions) as to what exactly is the “ḥupah”, as will be explained in paragraph IV.",
"The Rambam, may his memory be for a blessing, wrote in Chapter 10
One’s betrothed is prohibited (to him) until he brings her into his hosue and (there) has “yiḥud” with her, thereby formally setting her apart for him. This “yiḥud” is called taking her into the “ḥupah” and is universally recognized as (legal) marriage. (In the case of) one who has intercourse with his betrothed for the sake of marriage after he has betrothed her - she is considered married from the moment of initial sexual (genital) contact; she is then his wife in all matters.
From the moment when the betrothed enters into the “ḥupah”, it is permissable (for him) to have intercourse with her whenever he wishes: for behold, she is his wife completely, in every respect. And after she has entered the “ḥupah”, she is called “married” (i.e. their marriage is recognized [acknowledged] from the moment when she enters the “ḥupah”), even though he may not have had intercourse with her; provided, that is, that she is fit (permissable) for having intercourse (she is not menstruating at the time). But, if she was menstruating (at the time), even though she entered into the “ḥupah” and he may have been alone with her (“yiḥud”), the marriage is not completed, and, hence, she is still (to be considered) as betrothed.",
"From his (the Rambam’s) words, it is clear that the essence of the “ḥupah” is really “yiḥud” for the sake of marriage. This “yiḥud” must be with the (proper forms of) preparation (lit. preparation and invitation) to live with her as man and wife; hence, he must bring her into his house, have “yiḥud” with her (there) and formally set her apart for himself. The bringing (her) into his house constitutes the “preparation”, and the setting her apart (designation) constitutes the “invitation” to live with him forever (from that moment on).
The “yiḥud” can take the place of intercourse even if he does not have intercourse with her, (it is) only (necessary) that she be fit (permissable) for intercourse (with him), as I wrote.
But, if the “yiḥud” is not to be a permanent one, even if there has been the proper (forms of) preparation, e.g. he took her to his house for several days, after which she was to return to her father’s house, (in such a case) even if he has had “yiḥud” with her, it is nothing (i.e. this “yiḥud” has no legal character). And it is an obvious thing, for even if the “yiḥud” was not in his house, e.g. if he arranged for a rendezvous place to (there) have “yiḥud” with her and set her apart for himself, after which he will take her to his house, from that moment (the time of the “yiḥud”, whatever it may be), she is legally a married woman, as it is written in Chapter 57.
When he has “yiḥud” with her, he must recite the seven benedictions at the place of marriage (wherever it may be): that is, any rendezvous place for “yiḥud”, or he takes her to his house. The benedictions must precede marriage, although (the omission of) the benedictions do not hinder the validity of marriage, ex post facto, as it is written in Chapter 33. For this is what we have learned, that “a bride without the benediction is prohibited (for intercourse)”, (“without the benediction”) means to say “without marriage”, for marriage, in general, means only with (after) the benediction; on the other hand, the groom’s benedictions (in and of themselves) are insignificant (i.e. if there is no “ḥupah” the seven benedictions have no validity), as the Rambam wrote:
(In the case of) one who betrothes a woman and recites the groom’s benediction, but does not have “yiḥud” with her in his house - she is still considered only betrothed, for the groom’s benediction does not constitute marriage, only entrance into the “ḥupah” (does).
(In the case of) one who betrothes and enters into the “ḥupah”, but did not say the groom’s benediction - behold, this is a complete marriage. He should say the benediction later, even after many days.",
"This is what he (the Rambam) wrote: “If he has intercourse with her for the sake of marriage, she is considered married”, and it is clear from his words that, with (an act of) intercourse for the sake of marriage, she is considered married, even if he has not set her apart for himself, to take her to his house. And, in considering his words, one must make a distinction; for what the sages have said: (in the case of) one who has intercourse with his betrothed is to be flogged applies only if his intentions were not clearly for the sake of marriage; however, if the intention was (for the sake of) marriage, she is considered married because of (with) this intercourse.
[illegible] (see above) is merely to take her to his house, for if such were the case, there would be no need for intercourse - “yiḥud” alone would suffice. Rather, he certainly holds, that since the sages decided that with “yiḥud” subsequent to the preparations (see above) she is considered married, and the “yiḥud” is only a preparation for (an act of) intercourse, how much the less is any preparation required for the intercourse proper.
It is possible that there is no need for witnesses to the “yiḥud” (leading) to this intercourse, for this intercourse is not similar to intercourse for the sake of betrothal which requires witnesses; for it (intercourse) is the first stage in his acquisition (of her).
Intercourse (for the sake of) marriage can be compared to intercourse (with) a “ybamah”.
And also (the case of) such an intercourse (i.e. for marriage) is more lenient than intercourse for (the sake of) betrothal, for in that (latter) case, complete intercourse is required, according to the opinions of the Rif and the Rambam, as it is written in Chapter 33 paragraph 4. However, (in the case of) intercourse for (the sake of) marriage, the Rambam has written that (mere) sexual-genital contact suffices (his source is yebamot 55b. As the Rif wrote there, and see the Rin to Chapter 1, they are questionning the version in the Gemara.) Intercourse for (the sake of) marriage of “ḥupah”, since it is revealed for all (too see their entering the chamber together), behold, they are like witnesses, as it is written in Chapter 149, and see what is written in Chapter 26, paragraph 5.",
"There are those who say the “ḥupah” is not (constituted by) “yiḥud”, rather (“ḥupah” is) only when the husband (to-be) brings her from her father’s house to his house for the sake of marriage, even if he has not had ‘yiḥud” with her, for behold, it is written: “If she made a vow in the house of her husband” (Numbers 30:11), the meaning is that at all times when she is in her husband’s house, she is under his authority (Rin) to the first Chapter of Ketubot). And thus taught the sages: she is always under the authority of the (her) father, until she enters under the authority of the (her) husband in marriage; consequently, the essence of marriage is her entering under the authority (entering the domain) of the husband.
The Rambam holds that it is true: (her) entering under his domain constitutes marriage, but only in conjunction with “yiḥud”, because generally when he brings her into his house, he has “yiḥud” with her. But also, the opinion agrees with the Rambam, that, on the road, the essence (of valid marriage) is the “yiḥud”, as apparent in Chapter 57. (Ketubot 12b: “our rabbis taught [in a Baraita]: ‘he took her to his house … and she had witnesses so that it [her going with him, i.e. “yiḥud”] would not be hidden.’ ” There is no contradiction between the Rambam and the Tosafot, indeed, he does not rely on them. On the contrary, because of how remarkable in his reasoning, we suspend [the other opinion]. And the Rambam, at the beginning of Chapter 12, does away with witnesses, as it will be explained, with the help of heaven, in Chapter 67.)",
"There are those who say that “ḥupah” is (when) the (her) father delivers her, leading her into a house which has something new in it for the sake of that “ḥupah”, for example, embroidered sheets, which some make of roses or myrtles: and there they have “yiḥud” (Bet Josef, Chapter 61, quoting the Tur).
This then is the expression “entrance into the ‘ḥupah’ ”: this is a special place, a sort of canopy where the groom and bride sit with their attendants.
In the Jerusalem Talmud (at the end of Tractate Sotah), the grooms’ “ḥupah” comes to be (described as having) embroidered sheets with gold-embroidered ribbons hanging on them.
Hence it is clear that this was a place decorated especially for the “ḥupah”.",
"The Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, wrote (Chapter 2 of Tractate Sukkah, paragraph 8):
It must be examined (exactly) what constitutes the “ḥupah”; is it a place where one recites the marriage benedictions, meaning (only that it is) the first stage of marriage and hence called the “ḥupah”? It is impossible to say this, for somethimes they recite the benedictions in the city street while the people are crowding about. Rather, the main dwelling place of the groom and bride is what is called “ḥupah”. It is not a place used (lit. made) by mere chance. And there (the fomer place) they recite the benedictions for seven days.
The custom in Ashkenaz (Germany) is to make a litter and place the groom and bride (on it), and this is called the “ḥupah”.
This is in accordance with an ancient view (custom) and it has Biblical support: “A groom will go out of his chamber, and a bride from her canopy (‘ḥupah’)” (Joel 2:16).
Behold, there is an established (fixed) place that, for this time (the marriage ceremony), is called a “ḥupah”, as it is written: “He is like a groom going out from his canopy (‘ḥupah’)” (Psalms 19:6), meaning (he goes out) from the tent wherein is the “ḥupah”, as it is written in the previous verse: “He placed in them a tent for the sun” (Psalms 19:5).",
"Our rabbi, the Remah, wrote; “There are those who say that the ‘ḥupah’ is when they spread a cloth over their heads at the time of the benediction.” This view has been rejected (cf. Ḥelkat Meḥokek, Chapter 107), but the intention (purpose) of this opinion is that, similarly to our custom, they place beams with a curtain spread over them, and in ordinary language this is called a “ḥupah”. It is positioned in a special place, e.g. in the synagogue courtyard (see below and Chapter 3) or a similar place, (whereupon) the groom and the bride are led under it with their “friends” (grooms’ men, attendants), and there they recite the benedictions.",
"He (the Rmah) also wrote: “There are those who say that the ‘ḥupah’ of a virgin is (from the moment that) she is carried in the ‘marriage litter’, and that of a widow, when she has ‘yiḥud’ ”. This is found in the Mishna, that a virgin goes out (from her father’s house) in a marriage litter bareheaded (Ketubot, beginning of Chapter 2), for it was customary to lead the virgins from the father’s house to the marriage house “with her hair (down) to her shoulder” (Rashi). The word הינזמא means a veil on her head hanging down over her eyes, and sometimes she dozed behind it, for her eyes were not revealed; therefore, it was called הינזמא because of תנזמה (“dozing”) (Ketubot 17b).
There are those who say that the “ḥupah” is when they hand her to the (her) groom, before the benediction (Mordecai’s commentary to the first Chapter of Ketubot).
The intent of these two opinions is not that she is considered married immediately upon (the) placing on her (of the) הינזמא (veil), or immediately upon their bringing her to the (her) groom, rather, the intent is according to our custom: they seat the bride (on a chair), braid her hair, and make music before her with (various) musical instruments; (then) the groom comes and covers her face with a scarf, and from there they walk to the “ḥupah” - this (then) is the הינזמא the transmission (leading her over) to the groom. In our custom, it is obvious that she is not (considered) as married (yet), for he has not betrothed her yet, and there can be no marriage before betrothal. Rather, this is the beginning of the marriage, to be completed (only) after the betrothal and the benedictions.
(It should be understood that) similarly, the intent of the above opinions is that this is the beginning of the procedure of the marriage (so it appears to me; cf. Mordecai to the first Chapter of Ketubot, and Ḥelkat Meḥokek, Chapter 109).",
"He (the Rmah) also wrote:
The custom is widespread now: to call the “ḥupah” that place where a spread curtain is brought in (placed) on (four) poles, under which the bride and groom are led in public and he betrothes her there, and the benedictions of betrothal and marriage are pronounced; after which they are led to their house and they eat together in a private place. This is the customary “ḥupah” nowadays.
According to this (then), the basic completion of the “ḥupah” is their eating together in a private place, for this is (like) “yiḥud”. Therefore, others should be prevented from going there (to the private place with them) (Bayit Ḥadash). Not even one person should enter there, for if such were the case (if someone else was with them), the “yiḥud” would not be fitting for (an act of) intercourse. Hence, (care must be taken to) prevent anyone from entering there, so it can be a complete “yiḥud” (Bet Shmuel, Chapter 105).
In our time, since we do not have the custom of the groom and the bride eating together in one room where no one can enter (there); on the contrary, (since) all the attendants and members of the bridal party are there, (we) must know (exactly) what now constitutes the “ḥupah” which makes her (the bride) married (officially).",
"I found that one of the “Rishonim” wrote:
It appears to me that the things are as follows (thus): the father delivers his daughter first to his son-in-law amidst a group of his friends to be his wife; this is what is called marriage. After she has stood (stayed) one or two days, preparing the necessities for meals and dress, a house would be especially designated for (them) to rejoice there with the wedding guests and friends, and to make a meal, so that (in that house) they can have intercourse that night - there they bring in the bride; that house which has been prepared for his purpose is called a “ḥupah”. This is what is said in the Jerusalem Talmud: “The “ḥupah” is not an end in and of itself, rather (it is) a house wherein is a “ḥupah”, that is to say, that even though they have not yet placed (her) in the (marriage) litter, rather in a house wherein there is a litter, she immediately eats of the ‘Trumah’”. (If she is the wife of a Cohen, she now has the privilege of eating the “Trumah” - offering).
Therefore (based on this) I say that our (idea of) “ḥupah” is the bringing of the bride when we lead her into a house where there are embroidered sheets; behold, the (exact) time of marriage in this case is the time of the father’s delivering (her) to the husband. He (the groom) may (now) inherit her, but he may not be defiled because of her, nor does he have the right to annul her vows, until she enters the “ḥupah”. And once she enters the “ḥupah.”, she is (considered) as his wife in all matters, except that he is forbidden from having intercourse with her until he recites the seven benedictions. And if he does have intercourse with her after the marriage but without the “ḥupah” (i.e. without the benedictions), he has not properly acquired her with respect to these matters. For whenever (he lives with her without the “ḥupah”) it is considered a lewd act. (Quoted in the Shulḥan Arukh of Shneor Zalman in the commentary on Ḥafets Ḥayyim.)",
"From these things it is clear that the term “nisuin” and the term “ḥupah” are two different things, and thus one can infer from the wording of the Mishna, where it is taught: “Always, she is under the authority of the father until she enters the authority of the husband through marriage.” (Ketubot 4:5) And it is also taught (in the Mishnah): The woman may not eat of the heave-offering until she has entered the ‘ḥupah’”. (ibid. 5:3) (Therefore) since there is a difference in wording, (we) learn from this that they (“nisuin” and “ḥupah”) are two different things.
But, we have not heard this (opinion) from any of the Halakhic authorities, and in the words of the Rambam which we (have already) brought, it is written: “This ‘yiḥud’ is called entrance into the ‘ḥupah’, and is (also) called (it constitutes) marriage universally.” Behold, this proves that it (“nisuin” and “ḥupah”) in (only) one thing. Thus it is in the Mishnah: “until she enters the authority of the husband for ‘nisuin’ ”. This definition means “ḥupah” because this has reference to the heave-offering; thus Rashi’s comment: “That is to say she enters the ‘ḥupah’ for the sake of marriage.”
There are those who read that this is the true meaning of “until she enters the ‘ḥupah’ ”, but we have found in the Gemera[illegible] in a Baraita where it is taught: “One who has intercourse with a married woman - (with her being defined as a married woman) as soon as she had entered under the authority of her husband in marriage” (ibid. 49a). Behold, this is (a crime punishable) by strangulation. The inference is made here (that they are two different things), (for) even though (it is not stated) “she entered under the ‘ḥupah’ yet”, behold these are two (separate) things, so it is necessary to say (add) that the term “nisuin” is an inclusive term, and lasts from before the “ḥupah” until after the “ḥupah”; the beginning of the “nisuin” is not yet the “ḥupah”, rather, “ḥupah” is the end of the “nisuin”.",
"In my humble opinion, the Halakhic authorities do not differ at all, for behold, it is true that the word “ḥupah” is not written in the Torah, only the word (for) marriage, as it is written: “(In the case of) one who betrothes a woman but has not (yet) taken her…”
[illegible] marriage, since, according to Torah law proper, when he has intercourse with her for the sake of marriage, she is (considered) his wife completely and she is (considered) married. So wrote the Rambam.
However, it is not the way for Israelites to have this intercourse in public, and therefore, we would require witnesses to the “yiḥud” for intercourse. And even if it was possible that there was no need for witnesses to this (“yiḥud”), as it is written in paragraph 5, in every instance the matter would be in public (in reality) - for behold, (we) must bless them with the seven benedictions immediately before the marriage (ceremony). Therefore, our rabbis, may their memories be for a blessing, established that the “ḥupah” will be (can be) in place of the “nisuin” (i.e. the two terms can be used synonymously). It has always been this way; even in the time of the prophets, as it is written: “like a groom going out from his ‘ḥupah’ ” (Psalm 19:6), and, it says: “and a bride from her ‘ḥupah’ ” (Joel 2:16). (Cf. VIII) Obviously (then), thus did Moses our Rabbi instruct (lead) Israel.",
"The interpretation of “ḥupah” is from the expression: “He covers (protects) him all day” (Deuteronomy 33:12); this is an expression of covering and separating (them) from other people. And in the Aggadic literature, our sages, may their memories be for a blessing, wrote: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to make for each righteous man seven ‘ḥupot’ ” (Baba Batra 75a), meaning (special) coverings of honor, to distinguish them from other people, as it is written: “For on all glory shall be a ‘ḥupah’ ” (Isaiah 4:5). It was established to make a “ḥupah” of honor, and to recite the seven benedictions over them, and with this she is (considered) married completely. The (omission of) intercourse will not hinder (the validity of marriage) “everyone knows why the bride enters the ‘ḥupah’ ”. (Ketubot 8b). So there is no need for witnesses to the “yiḥud”, or ten men (to witness) the wedding benedictions, (because) immediately afterwards they will have intercourse, and this would be indecent (for others to be present).
Every kind of “ḥupah” that has been customary constitutes acquiring (a woman) through marriage, since their intent is (always) marriage, and now they are separated from other people. The two of them stand in one place for the sake of marriage, for example, when he leads her into his house and has “yiḥud” with her, as the Rambam wrote (Cf. III). And it would appear to me that the Rambam’s intention is also not that it is a complete “yiḥud” if the two of them are alone in one room, rather (when) they have “yiḥud” to live together as a man and his wife; they stand next to each other, and the seven benedictions are recited for them. Therefore, the opinion that we wrote in paragraph 6, viz. that “ḥupah” is not (only) “yiḥud” but the bringing her into his house for the sake of marriage, is essentially the opinion of the Rambam; for it is obvious that this opinion also acknowledges that, if he brings her to his house but is not with her, this is nothing. It is also obvious that he must be together with her, and recite the seven benedictions for then.
However, regarding this opinion, what the Halakhic authorities worte with respect to the opinion of the Rambam, that he holds that complete “yiḥud” in one room is necessary, and that no one else should be with them - this is the opinion concerning which there is disagreement. But, (in) our interpretation of the opinion of the Rambam: this and this are one (the same).",
"Thus, (no matter) if some are accustomed to different types of “ḥupot”, as (described) in paragraph 7 where they make a place especially decorated for the groom and the bride, or like our (custom) of placing poles with a spread curtain under which the wedding attendants lead the groom and the bride - first they seat the bride and the groom covers her (with a veil), and upon their return from the “ḥupah”, they go together and sit at the table (to eat) next to each other, and this is the sign of marriage. Everyone knows that this is (in) preparation for intercourse in an accepted manner; there is no need to fear that, at the proper hour, he will not be able to have intercourse with her, for behold, the intention has already been demonstrated (made) without (there being) so much excitement.
And the Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, who was apprehensive, because the place for the “ḥupah” is a temporary one, also acknowledges that a place should be especially chosen for them to be together before the (actual) “ḥupah” and after the “ḥupah”, this being so, it is obvious: that all this matter (all these aspects) constitutes the “ḥupah”, and immediately (after) the seven benedictions have been recited for them, she is (considered) married completely.
This is where one of the Rishonim disagreed, (differentiating) between marriage and “ḥupah”, as we wrote in paragraph 12. But it is also his intention (to show) that the beginning of the marriage (ceremony) is a place where they (the bride and groom) sit before (entering) the “ḥupah”, where he covers her head; this is where he takes her under his authority. But this is not the complete “ḥupah”, and not more effective than (her father) delivering her to her husband, for this (seating and covering) relates only to inheritance, as it is written in Chapter 57.
The completion is (when they are) under the “ḥupah”, (only) then is the marriage (ceremony) completed. The sign of the completed marriage (ceremony) is (when) they recite the seven benedictions for them.",
"The general rule is according to the basis of the law of the Torah proper: marriage is intercourse for the sake of marriage or the preparation for it, where the “ḥupah” (in the broad sense of the term) is the preparation (for this). Which (type of) preparation depends upon local custom. Since this thing (albeit in many forms) is called “ḥupah”, and (since) the benedictions are recited, the marriage is completed and the end of the preparations for all “ḥupot” is from that moment on (when) she enters under his authority and he (accepts that he) is ready to live with her as man with his wife.
Therefore, the Rambam insisted that she (the bride) be ritually clean; since the essence of the “ḥupah” is intercourse, it is required that she be (ritually) proper for that intercourse. But the majority of the Halakhic authorities disagree with him, with the opinion that we should not be concerned for her to be (ritually) proper for intercourse at the exact hour of the “ḥupah”, for certainly there will be (at least) ten men there for (to witness) the benedictions. It is impossible for him to have intercourse (with her) then. Rather, we should say (only) that she be (ritually) proper for intercourse after a time, and if such is the case, there is no difference (in saying) after an hour, or after one day or two days.",
"In regards to those among us who designate the “ḥupah” in the courtyard of the synagogue, there is great reasoning for this: for the essence of the “ḥupah” is the (bride’s) going out from the authority of the (her) father to the authority of the (her) husband; this (is the case) if the husband takes her to his house.
But, in many instances, it is customary for us to make everything in the house of the bride’s father, for often the bride’s father takes him (the groom) into his house for a time, also, and, therefore, how is it evident that she (the bride) has gone out from the authority of the father to the authority of the husband? Therefore, we place the “ḥupah” in the courtyard of the synagogue, for this is a congregational (communal) place, and at the time of the “ḥupah” it is in the mind of the congregation to make this groom acquire this land, as (with) the congregation’s “etrog” at the time of the blessing on the first day of Sukkot, (which) is considered to belong to everyone. Since (in the mind of the congregation) this land is (considered) his (for the time of the “ḥupah”), it is considered like his bringing her into his authority (the Grah).
The poles and the spread curtain which we call the “ḥupah” is (so called) in reality - for it covers the groom and the bride, separating them from the rest of the people and (still) showing them cleaving to each other. And in regards to the attendants standing under the “ḥupah”, also, this is all because of the friendship with the groom and bride, and therefore they stand bound together, close together.",
"And also, it appears to me, that even according to the Rambam and those that agree with his position, the (omission of the) benedictions do not hinder (the validity of marriage ex post facto), like all benedictions do not hinder (the validity); in this “ḥupah”, as he (the Rambam) wrote, only (the omission of) intercourse for the sake of marriage or (of) a real “yiḥud” in a closed room fitting for intercourse at that moment (do).
But, all “ḥupot” except for those which are only “preparations” to point to this couple’s completed marriage, for as long as the seven benedictions have not been recited for them, the marriage has not been completed. Perhaps this is the reason for the Halakhic authorities who hold that (omission of the) benedictions does hinder the validity of the “ḥupah”, and therefore it is a necessity that the groom’s benedictions be recited, before the marriage is completed. (On the essence of the matters that we are discussing, the Gerah wrote in Chapter 109: “There is no need for ‘yiḥud’ at all, only that she be under his authority.” See there. And we explained that the Rambam also holds this opinion. See Rashi’s commentary to Kiddushin 10b: “s.v.זו זכז ׳זנשאת פשיטא זכו׳ everything that is ritually pure in your house may be eaten.” See there. And see Rashi’s commentary to Yebamot 110a: “s.v. אבי
כירסיא on a bridal canopy; this seems to mean, like the rest of the “ḥupot”, he is not yet her husband.” See there and give it thorough thought.)",
"There is one who says that it is correct that, at the time when he betrothes (sanctifies) her (i.e. during the ceremony itself), in our custom this betrothal comes at the time of the “ḥupah”, the groom and the bride should not stand under the spread curtain on poles that is the “ḥupah”, rather, they should stand in front of it. Only afterwards, when they begin to recite the seven benedictions, do they stand under the “ḥupah” (Bayit Ḥadash); the principle being that the “ḥupah” should not precede the betrothal.
We have not seen anyone cocerned about this (matter); for behold, according to what the major authorities wrote, that the essence of the “ḥupah” is when they (the couple) eat together after (the ceremony) in a private place, certainly there can be no concern about this (Bayit Ḥadash).
And even according to our custom, there is no concern for this, for we have already explained that our “ḥupah” is (derived from) their accepting the fact that, for them, this is the “ḥupah” and the completion of the marriage (ceremony), making her his wife completely. This is after they have completed (reciting) the seven benedictions, as it is written: “for then is the completion of the ‘ḥupah’ ”, not before. The result is that, when the betrothal precedes the “ḥupah”, which precedes the benediction, there is no “ḥupah” for betrothal (lit. on this). And (with regards to) the fact that the “preparations” for marriage precede the betrothal; there is no concern at all on this (matter).",
"Since one who betrothes and his betrothed are prohibited to have “yiḥud”, therefore, wrote our rabbi, the Remah: “one who betrothes, when he is with his betrothed in one house (i.e. in private), he must recite the seven benedictions, lost they have ‘yiḥud’ ”. And even though the benedictions without “ḥupah” do not constitute anything (officially) anyhow according to what the Rambam wrote. “(if) his intention is for the sake of marriage there is no need for a ‘ḥupah’ ” - therefore, they should recite the seven benedicitons, for then it is obvious that if he has intercourse with her, his intention is for marriage; “One will not let stand what is permitted and eat what is forbidden” (Avodah Zarah 39b).
In addition, (we cite) the Halakhic authorities, that (the omission of) the benedictions hinders (the validity of the marriage); it is necessary to recite the benedictions for them (Bet Shmuel, Note #1).
In addition, since they have stayed together in the house for a long period of tine, it becomes like a courtyard (i.e. an extension of their house) for the two of then, and their (this) “yiḥud” is a (valid) marriage; she is permissable to hin (for intercourse) after the benediction (Ḥelkat Meḥokek, Note #1).
All this (the above) is according to their custom, that she is already betrothed (from before). But, according to our custom, where the betrothal is at the time of the “ḥupah”, the benedictions (in this case) do not count, for behold, he has not yet betrothed her. Therefore, he must keep himself far away from his fiancee, until the time of the wedding.",
"We have already written in the name of the Rambam:
(In the case of) one who betrothes a woman and recites the groom’s benedictions, but does not have “yiḥud” with her in his house - she is still considered only betrothed, for the groom’s benediction does not constitute marriage, only entrance into the “ḥupah” (does).
However, if he has intercourse with her for the sake of marriage, it is all right (i.e. she is then considered married) as it is written: “the Rambam’s intention is (to show) that if he doess not have intercourse with her, or (if) they do not have ‘yiḥud’ immediately, the benedictions are voided” (see Ḥelkat Meḥokek, Note #11).",
"And also the opposite (case can arise): if he betrothed and entered into the “ḥupah” but did not recite the groom’s benedictions - behold, this is a complete marriage; he should return and recite the benedictions, even after several days. And even though all blessings must precede tha act (cf. Pesaḥim 7b), anyhow, among those blessings, those for marriage are not mentioned at all; one may recite the (marriage) benedictions even afterwards. But, the betrothal blessing must be recited before the betrothal (i.e. that part of the marriage ceremony which is still called betrothal), as all the (other) blessings which must precede the act.",
"Pome of the Halakhic authorities wrote that there is no “ḥupah” for a widow, and their basis is from the Jerusalem Talmud. But it will be explained, with the help of heaven, in Chapter 64, that the Jerusalem Talmud does not prove the point.
It is obvious - according to the opinion of the Rambam, that the “ḥupah” is the “yiḥud”, and likewise (for) those who have the opinion that the “ḥupah” is (her) going out into his authority - why should there be a difference between (the “ḥupah” of) a virgin and a widow? However, for those who have the opinion that the essence of the “ḥupah” is the house that is especially prepared for the dwelling of the groom and the bride, with embroidered sheets; and for those who have the opinion that the essence of the “ḥupah” is the spreading of the canopy or the marriage litter - certainly, for a widow, this is not done, for (this type of) “ḥupah” does not apply. And the essence of (his) acquiring her is in a “yiḥud” that is proper for intercourse.
And therefore, according to our (customary) “ḥupot”, where we do not make a public demonstration for a widow when she marries a widower, and she does not cover her head, and they do not have attendants or musical instruments, nor do we lead them to the courtyard of the synagogue, rather, in a quiet way we place the poles with a spread canopy in the house, and he betrothes her (there), and they recite the seven benedictions. This “ḥupah” does not constitute an acquisition; he must acquire her with a “yiḥud” proper for intercourse. This will be explained further, with the help of heaven, in Chapter 64.",
"Before entrance into the “ḥupah”, he (the groom) must write for her (the bride) a “Ketubah”, after which he is permitted to (have intercourse with) his wife, for thus did our sages, may their memories be for a blessing, say: “It is prohibited for him to be with his wife even for one hour without (his having written) a ‘Ketubah’ ”. Thus did the Rambam rule, and our rabbi, the Bet Josef, quotes it (the Rambam’s ruling) in paragraph 3: “There is no reason to question why his obligation is to write (the ‘Ketubah’) before the ‘ḥupah’; let him write it after the ‘ḥupah’ (so long as it is) before he has intercourse with her.” For there is (validity) to the Rambam’s position when he holds the opinion that a “ḥupah” proper for intercourse is necessary, and (a “ḥupah”) without a “Ketubah” is not proper for intercourse (Har HaMor, Chapter 10, Halakha #7).
And, according to this, we, who are not following this (the Rambam’s position) on this, as it is written in Chapter 61: “he was permitted to write (the ‘Ketubah’) also afterward (i.e. after the ‘ḥupah’)”, the fact that our rabbi, the Remah, did not make a Hagah on this, because according to our custom - we pause (in the ceremony) by reading the “Ketubah” under the “ḥupah”, between the benedictions of betrothal and marriage. This being so, even without the reasoning of the Rambam, it is necessary (for him) to write it (the “Ketubah”) before the “ḥupah”. And such is the custom.",
"However, the “Ketubah” alone does not make (for a valid) marriage. Therefore, (in the case of) the one who betrothes a woman, writes for her a “Ketubah”, but she does not enter the “ḥupah” - she is still (considered) betrothed and not married, for the “Ketubah” (alone) does not make (for a valid) marriage.
If he dies or divorces her, the Rambam wrote that she collects “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ” only from the free property but not from the mortgaged property. She does not collect “the additional ‘Ketubah’ ” at all, even if he has written (the “Ketubah”) for her, his reasoning being that the “Ketubah” itself is nothing (i.e. does not make her married), for he only wrote (it) for her in order to marry her. And (therefore) “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ” is only like an oral loan; hence, she collects only from the free property.
But if he betrothed a woman and did not write for her a “Ketubah”, and (then) dies or divorces her, she is (still only) betrothed and she receives nothing, even “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ”; for they did not institute “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ” for her until she is married, or until he writes (the “Ketubah” for her). This is the opinion of the Rambam.",
"There are some among our rabbis who hold that a betrothed woman has a “Ketubah”, for this appears to be so in several places in the Talmud. If he did not write (a “Ketubah”) for her, she collects from the free property, and if he did write (it) for her, she collects also from the mortgaged property, as (is the principle) with all documents (pertaining to monetary matters). But if he did not write (it) for her, it appears that, with this opinion also, she does not collect from the mortgaged property.
However, the Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, wrote: “even if he did not write (it) for her, she collects from the mortgaged property because of the ‘Ktnai Bet Din’ ” (a stipulation of the rabbinical court that a woman without a “Ketubah” is still entitled to the benefits of a “Ketubah”) (Ketubot, Chapter 4, paragraph 64). And it appears, in the words of the Rosh in another place, that he is in doubt with respect to this law (ibid. Chapter 5, paragraph 5). And not only this, (but) “even if he wrote (it) for her from the betrothal, and later wrote (it again) for her from the marriage, she foregoes her claim to the mortgaged property from the first (of the two ‘Ketubot’)” (ibid.), and she can only collect from the purchasers that which has been sold since the time of marriage.
All this is in the matter of “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ”, but in the matter of “the additional ‘Ketubah’ ” everyone agrees that, even if he did write (it) for her, she does not collect from the time of the betrothal, for it is (based on the) general assumption that he only wrote (it) for her in order to marry her.
The Halakhic authorities wrote that the custom is according to the Rambam, not to let a betrothed woman collect the “Ketubah”, for in all the places where in the Gmara it is clear that a betrothed woman has a “Ketubah”, the Rambam shows that (in those cases indeed) he did actually write (it) for her.
And, the same is the position of the Geonim44 that, since in the Gemara it is questioned whether or not a betrothed woman has a “Ketubah”, and it is not solved there (Baba Metsia 17a), she does not receive the “Ketubah”.",
"(In the case of) one whose betrothed daughter is widowed or divorced after the betrothal (but before the marriage), even several times before she reaches adulthood - her “Ketubah” (money) belongs to her father, for she only goes out from the authority of the father by becoming an adult or by marriage. Therefore, if she is married and (then) widowed or divorced from the marriage, even before (she reaches) maturity, i.e. even if she is still a minor, her father receives nothing with respect to the first “Ketubah” written at the betrothal: “we do not consider the date of the writing of the ‘Ketubah’, saying that, since it was written (while she was still) under the authority of the father, it belongs to the father; rather, we consider the date of the collection, and the collection is only after the marriage” (Rashi commentary, Ketubot 43b).",
"(In the case of) one whose betrothed (woman) died - if the betrothed man is a Cohen, he may not defile himself because of her, as it is written: “except for his relatives” (Leviticus 21:2), and this means near kin. And a betrothed is not his near kin, even if he has betrothed her by (an act of) intercourse, since she is (supposedly) prohibited to him (for further intercourse) until the marriage.
If he (the one who betrothes) dies, she is not obligated to defile herself because of him, even though it is a commandment to defile oneself for all near kin. Nevertheless, (defiling herself) for her betrothed man is no “mitsvah” (good deed) but doing it constitutes no prohibition, even if she is a female Cohen, for the daughters of Aaron were not commanded regarding the defiling, as it is written” “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1); (it says) “the sons of Aaron” and not “the daughters of Aaron” (i.e. the prohibition against defiling oneself applies to men only).",
"And it is a similar matter with her inheritance when she (a betrothed woman) dies: he (the one who betrothes) is not eligible for her inheritance, for also in the matter of inheritance is it written: “his near kin”. And since he does not inherit her, he is not obligated to bury her (i.e. provide for her burial). Rather, her father will inherit her and he will bury her. And even if the father does not bury her, he (the father) will (still) inherit her. Even, if there remains no inheritance from her at all, it is not incumbent upon the one who betrothed to bury her or to make any payments (whatsoever).
And even if she was married to him in a place where he does not inherit her because of the ordinance in Chapter 53, he is not obligated to bury her. And in a place where he inherits half of her dowry, there are those who say that the burial is incumbent upon both of them (the one who betrothed and the father) (Ḥelkat Meḥokek). And there are those who say (that the burial is incumbent) upon the husband alone (Bet Shmuel).",
"Similarly, the one who betrothes is not obligated (to provide) for the sustenance of his betrothed, because as long as she is not married, and he is not obligated to (provide) her conjugal rights, he is not obligated to (provide) her sustenance and garments, unless she was a minor (and an) orphan being provided sustenance by her brothers - for in this case, the one who betrothes is obligated to her sustenance, since she only receives sustenance from her brothers until she is betrothed or reaches maturity. This one (the orphan who is a minor) has not reached maturity to provide for her own sustenance, rather she is only a minor or a young maiden. And no man wants his betrothed to degrade herself by going out and begging at doors (to seek sustenance). Therefore, even if he (the one who betrothes) says that he is not concerned about this (i.e. her having to beg), we force hin to provide her sustenance; he is obligated (to do so) according to rabbinic injunction. This is the opinion of the Rambam.
There are those who say that the one who betrothes is not obligated for her sustenance, even in a case like this (i.e. where she is a minor and an orphan) - and she must be provided for by her brothers (it depends on the version, cf. Ketubot 53b).
It is an obvious thing that a negotiated-for (“engaged”) woman does not have any of the legal rights (status) of a married woman, not like (those of a) betrothed woman, for even if he wrote for her a “Ketubah”, it is nothing (i.e. it has no validity) if they retracted (broke the engagement) before betrothal: because he: wrote (it) for her only in order to betrothe her and enter (with) her (into the “ḥupah”) (Ḥelkat Meḥokek). How much the more so that with the other things (besides sustenance) she has none of the legal rights of a betrothed woman."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Elul is written 'full,' meaning that the vav is added because this is how it appears in the Book of Nechemia chapter 6 and in the Mishnah at the beginning of tractate Rosh Hashanah. In the ninth chapter of Bechorot Tishre is written with one yud at the end of it and not more, and it is also written so in the Mishnah there. Marcheshvan is written with one vav as it is found in the Mishnah, and in the first chapter of the gemara Ta'anit as well as elsewhere. If one writes is simply as Cheshvan this is legitimate because that is what people call the month and that is how it is printed in calendars and people will not be led astray. It appears to me that if Cheshvan is written with two vavs it is also a legitimate spelling because the extra letter does not change the pronunciation and will not lead people astray. One must write Marcheshvan as a single word and if it is written as two words - Mar Cheshvan - I am in doubt that it is legitimate. Even if one says that this is acceptable, I am still in doubt in a case when Mar is written at the end of one line and Cheshvan at the beginning of the next. It appears to me that Mar is its own word meaning, as some people explain, that the rains fall in this month and Mar refers to raindrops as it is written \"The nations are but a drop in a bucket...\" (Isaiah 40:15) One could also say that in the Jerusalem Talmud (chapter 1, halacha 2) and in midrash Bereshit 48 it teaches that the names of the months were brought by the returnees from the Babylonian exile. Therefore one could say that they made this month a remembrance for the beginning of the sins which led to exile that itself began with the ten northern tribes and only afterward continued withe Judah and Benjamin. The 'chief sinner' was Yerovam ben Nevat who switched the seventh and eight months of the calendar, as it says in the Book of Kings (I Kings 12:32-33). Mar in Aramaic means 'switch,' which would make Marcheshvan a reference to switching Cheshvan and Tishre, the seventh and eight months. There is also a hint here thaht this change cause bitterness (marirut) to all of Israel. Despite all this, in truth we do not expound the meaning of the names of the month in a definitive fashion and therefore if Marcheshvan is written as two words or on two line this is a doubtful case despite the fact that I am inclined to permit it. If, Gd forbid, this doubt should lead to the inability to grant a divorce then perhaps one should be lenient."
]
],
"Seder HaGet": [],
"Seder Chalitza": []
},
"Choshen Mishpat": [
[
"The law of appointment of Judges in our days and the days of the Temple and in it are 26 paragraphs All that is explained in these laws is only with the permission of the Exalted Czar, for the law of the King is the law.
It is a positive commandment from the Torah to appoint Judges as it says (Devarim 16:18) Judges and (Enforcement) Officers you should appoint for yourselves. And they need to have Semikha from the Land of Israel specifically. That is, 3 wise men and one of them that has Semikha (Rambam, Sanhedrin Chapter 4, Halacha 3) when they see a wise man that is fit to judge and issue rulings, they should give Semikha and call him Rebbe (Rabbi)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"Even though the ones chosen [to judge] have all the laws of being a judge, and therefore it should be forbidden for any of the litigants to propose his claims before the one he chose without the other litigant present, nevertheless, it has become the minhag that each one proposes his claims before the [judge] he chose. And since each of the two parties does this, and the minhag is such, it is as if each party has accepted upon themselves this process in this mode, and there is no prohibition. However, the chosen [judge] must be careful to make sure the litigant who chose him promising him money for his work will give it to him whether he wins or loses. For were this not so, it would be prohibited for him to sit in judgement, since he has a bias, and his heart is turned even to falsity so that he can take from his party what was promised him.\n"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"If he accepts testimony of an Arab [i.e. gentile], it is as effective as if he accepted a relative or invalid witness. But if he agreed to be judged before an Arab judge, that does not work at all, and it is prohibited to be judged before them, as will be explained in Siman 26. But if he agreed to rely on what he judged based on the clarity of his thought, and not on their set laws, that is as effective as accepting a relative or an invalid witness (like we saw earlier in the approach of the Shach in s'k 15, and this is the proper law, unlike ...)."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"We have established that sight damage (hezek re'iyah) is a real form of damage. For most people are particular about others watching their actions, their use [of the courtyard] and their work, because the evil eye results from the gaze of others - and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 107a) that it is prohibited for a person to stand by another’s field when [its ripe grain] is standing; and they also expounded about the verse (Deuteronomy 7:15), \"The Lord will ward off from you all sickness,\" this is the evil eye - and furthermore, there are many kinds of work and use that require privacy, such that when someone else is watching, one is prevented from doing them. But we have also established that there is established use (chazakah) with sight damage (showing the damaged party's consent to the situation). However there is a disagreement about the measure of established use, as I have written in the beginning of Arukh HaShulchan, Choshen Mishpat 153. For there are some that say that immediately when his fellow does [an action that impinges on his privacy] and it becomes known to him and [yet] he is quiet, it is immediately [considered] acquiescence. But there are others that say that it requires three years and a justification [of the action]. And we have already explained there in paragraph 3, regarding the established use of sight damage, that since there is a doubt about the law, the burden of proof is upon the one who wants to extract what his fellow [possesses]; and the one damaged is called the possessor. Hence there is no established use here without a justification and with less than three years. However there is established use with sight damage. And even though there are some great rabbis that hold that there is no established use at all with sight damage, our rabbis who are the authors of the Shulchan Arukh have determined that there is established use. And likewise should one instruct once a person has established his use for three years with a justification."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"",
"The Rama has already written at the end of Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 35 that the rules regarding invalid witnesses is according to the formal ruling, but there is an early enactment that in a place where there are no available valid witnesses, we accept testimony even from invalid witnesses. And there is someone who has written that this is only true regarding uncommon occurrences, but regarding torts which are common we do not apply this early enactment. . . . And I was shocked because if this limitation [on the early enactment is true] you have not left any room to survive for from where will parties secure valid witnesses regarding various forms of property damage . . . [It seems to me] that the core reason [why some have resisted expanding this early enactment] is because we are worried that some will simply hire invalid witnesses to testify falsely. Therefore, it seems to me that the law is where a beit din concludes that the testimony of invalid witnesses is not credible and the opposing party contradicts their testimony completely, the beit din will not rule on the basis of the testimony submitted by the invalid witnesses. However, if the beit din believes, based on the facts of the case, that they would be ruling correctly by admitted the testimony of these invalid witnesses, [then they should admit the testimony of the invalid witnesses] because if you did not do so, the fields, gardens and orchards will be burned down and there will be nobody to protect them. And this is the correct ruling."
]
]
},
"versions": [
[
"YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash",
"http://www.torontotorah.com"
],
[
"Sefaria Community Translation",
"https://www.sefaria.org"
],
[
"Hupah veKiddushin, trans. by Norman T. Roman. HUC, 1975",
"http://library.huc.edu/pdf/theses/Roman%20Norman-CN-Rab-1985%20rdf.pdf"
],
[
"Wikisource",
"http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%97_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%90"
]
],
"heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
"categories": [
"Halakhah"
],
"schema": {
"heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
"enTitle": "Arukh HaShulchan",
"key": "Arukh HaShulchan",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "אורח חיים",
"enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
},
{
"heTitle": "יורה דעה",
"enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
},
{
"heTitle": "אבן העזר",
"enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "",
"enTitle": ""
},
{
"heTitle": "סדר הגט",
"enTitle": "Seder HaGet"
},
{
"heTitle": "סדר חליצה",
"enTitle": "Seder Chalitza"
}
]
},
{
"heTitle": "חושן משפט",
"enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
}
]
}
}