Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

In all three of these activities, the animal dies because of bleeding. For this reason, although beating may cause the animal to die because of internal bleeding, it is included in the same category.

Since no blood is shed, this is considered a derivative and not a ןיעמ.ה

A coin of the Talmudic period. Based on Yoreh De’ah 30, it appears that a sela is approximately 2.6 or 3.2 cm in diameter according to the different opinions.

Based on Avodah Zarah 26a, the Eglei Tal quotes opinions which state that if a person performs such an act, he is liable for reaping—i.e., removing an entity fr()m its source of nurture. The difference between these two rationales is that when an animal is prepared to give birth, the concept of reaping no longer applies, for the fetus-no longer needs its mother’s nurture.

This follows the Rambam’s ruling that one is liable for performing a הניאש הכאלמהפוגל.הכירצ The authorities who differ on this principle will hold one liable only if one kills these creatures for the sake of something that one needs from their bodies.

In view of the experiments of Pasteur, there are many Rabbis who maintain that this ruling should be disregarded and we should refrain from killing any creatures on the Sabbath. Others, even contemporary authorities with scientific backgrounds, such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe Shelita (see Emunah UMada, p. 130 ff), maintain that our inability to observe spontaneous generation is not absolute proof that such a phenomenon does not exist. Consequently, it is inappropriate for us to think of altering the halachah.
ln this context, it is significant to quote the Rambam’s statements, Hilchot Shechitah 10:13:
Similarly, with regard to the conditions that we have enumerated as causing an animal to be trefah (unable to live for an extended period): Even though it appears from the medical knowledge available to us at present, that some of these conditions are not fatal... all that is significant to us is what our Sages said, as [implied by Deuteronomy 17:11]: “[You shall act] according to the instructions that they will give you.”
See also the introductions to Chapter 3 of Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah and to Chapter 4 of Hilchot De’ ot in the Moznaim Mishneh Torah series.

See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 316:9.

The difference of Rabbinic opinion mentioned with regard to the previous halachah applies in this instance as well.

Shabbat 121b explains that this leniency applies even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who maintains that one is liable for performing a הכירצ הניאש הכאלמ.חפונל Because of the danger these species pose, they are allowed to be killed even when they are not pursuing a person. For it can be assumed that as soon as they become aware of a person, they will pursue him.

The Rambam cites these examples to illustrate the principle he states, not to be restrictive. If other species pose mortal danger in a manner similar to the five mentioned here, the same laws apply (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., creatures that can inflict mortal wounds, but will not necessarily do so.

In this instance as well, Rabbi Yehudah would accept this leniency, for the person is concerned only with saving his life and not with the performance of the forbidden activity. (See the interpretation of Sefer HaBatim mentioned in the notes on Chapter 10, Halachah 17.)

For there is no immediate danger involved.

The wording used by the Rambam (based on Shabbat 121b) is somewhat problematic. The expression “if one steps on them accidentally,” implies that we are speaking after the fact, after one has already crushed them, while the expression “it is permitted” appears to indicate that this license is granted at the outset.
The Rashba explains that, indeed, license to kill these creatures is granted outright. One should merely make it appear that one is stepping on them accidentally. This ruling applies, however, only according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold one liable for performing a חפונל הכירצ הניאש.חכאלם According to Rabbi Yehudah, · the intent is that one may proceed without taking care to check whether one kills them or not.

This is one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor.

The Maggid Mishneh cites Shabbat 8:3, which states that one is liable for transferring a hide this size from one domain to another. Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that this refers not to the skin used to make parchment on which the amulet is written, but rather the leather used as a covering for the amulet.

This is also one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor.

See Hilchot Tefillin 1:6.

The Rambam’s ruling differs from that ofRabbenu Chanan’el, who holds one liable for salting meat to preserve it for an extended period. (See also the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 321:2-6, which mentions several Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with salting food. Note the explanation of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 321:2.) The Ma’aseh Rokeach states that the Rambam maintains, by contrast, that there are no Rabbinic prohibitions associated with salting food in this context. Note, however, Chapter 22, Halachah 10, which mentions a Rabbinic prohibition against salting food as part of the pickling process.

This is also one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor.

Apparently, the Rambam adds this phrase to distinguish between this category of forbidden labor and the category of shearing. Shearing refers to removing an animal’s wool or hair when alive, while smoothing refers to performing the same activity after the animal’s death (Yesodei Yeshurun). Note, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 7, which states that one is liable for shearing an animal’s wool even when the animal is dead.
See also the Responsum of the Beit Meir (Vol. IV, p. 142), which explains that although the activities included in the two categories of labor are similar, their objectives differ. The object of the labor of shearing is to obtain wool, while the object of the labor of smoothing is to produce a smooth hide.
[According to the Rivosh (cited in Chapter 9, Halachah 7), shearing applies when wool is removed from a live animal, while smoothing applies when the same activity is performed after an animal has died (Eglei Tal).

See Hilchot Tefillin 1:7-8, where the Rambam explains that a hide used for parchment is divided in half. The thin upper side of the hide where the hair grows is called k’ laf The thick portion on the side of the flesh is called duchsustos. Tefillin should be written on k’laf, while mezuzot should be written on duchsustos.
At present, the parchment used for writing sacred articles is no longer processed in this fashion.

See Chapter 23, Halachah 10, for Rabbinical prohibitions associated with leather working.

See Chapter 23, Halachah 11, for Rabbinical prohibitions associated with smoothing wax.

The Maggid Mishneh cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 7:2), which explains that preparation of the hides used for the Sanctuary involved suspending them on pillars and rubbing them so that their surface would be smooth.

This is one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor.

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 17, anyone who performs a forbidden labor for a destructive intent is not liable.

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, anyone who performs a forbidden labor casually, without intent, is not liable.

Rav Kapach explains that here also the intent is performing the activity for the sake of tension release, without any concern for what one is doing.

To use in stuffing a pillow or a blanket (Rashi, Shabbat 74b).

Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, who contrasts this halachah with Chapter 10, Halachah 16. (See the notes on that halachah.)

As is obvious from the following halachah, this refers to a twig or piece of wood that is not fit to be used as food for an animal.

The Maggid Mishneh and others question the Rambam’s ruling, noting that according to Beitzah 33a-b, it would appear that one is liable only if one trims a piece of wood with a utensil. Significantly, however, the Magen Avraham 322:4 quotes the Rambam’s decision without objection.

Although the Rambam’s ruling is accepted as halachah by the later authorities, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and other Rishonim differ.

E. g., myrtle branches, which give off their fragrance when they are broken open and rubbed. Significantly, when mentioning this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 322:5) states that this is permitted “for the sake of a sick person.” Nevertheless, the conclusion of the later authorities is that a healthy person may also do so (Mishnah Berurah 322:16).

This is one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor.

One is liable for writing two letters because this resembles the activity necessary for the construction of the Sanctuary. A mark was made on each of the sides of the walls, so that it would be used to match the same walls to each other every time the Sanctuary was erected (Shabbat 12:3, Rashi, Shabbat 75b).

The same also applies to a person who writes two numerals (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:8). See the notes on the following halachah and on Halachah 17, which discuss the use of marks or symbols.

One’s intent need not be to write on the Sabbath itself. As long as one erases with the intent of writing, one is liable regardless of when one actually writes (Mishnah Berurah 340:13).

This is also one of the 39 categories of forbidden labor. If a mark was made in error on one of the walls, it was erased so that the correct mark could be made.

For he has only written one letter. One is not liable until one writes two letters, regardless of their size. Nevertheless, writing even a single letter is considered as יצחרועיש (the performance of half the forbidden measure of a prohibition) and forbidden according to the Torah itself (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:4, Mishnah Berurah 340:12).

For his erasure is sufficient to enable two letters to be written.

In this instance, although only one letter was written, the act is significant, because it completed an entire scroll. There are commentaries on Shabbat 104b, the source for this halachah, who maintain that, in this instance, one is liable for performing the labor שיטפב,הבמ completing an article. From the Rambam’s wording, however, it appears that he holds him liable for writing.
We see a similar decision with regard to the forbidden labor of weaving. In Chapter 9, Halachah 18, the Rambam writes that one is liable for weaving one thread if by doing so, one completes a garment (Rav Kapach).

I.e., one writes an ordinary letter on parchment fit to write a Torah scroll (Rav Kapach).

Although one has ruined the parchment and thus there is a destructive aspect to one’s activity, since the words one wrote are significant, one is liable.

For the entire purpose of the labor of erasing is to prepare a writing surface for use.

ln Talmudic times, the word םקנפ referred to a book of tablets coated with wax upon which merchants would write with a stylus (Rashi, Shabbat 104b).

For erasing. With this act, one prepares a writing surface. Note the Sh’vut Ya’akov and others who explain that one is liable for smearing the wax (see Halachah 6). Most authorities, however, accept the Rambam’s ruling that one is liable for erasing.

All these pairs of letters have meaning. Hence, one is liable. lf, however, one writes a pair of letters that has no meaning, even if it is the beginning of a word—e.g.,,אא one is not liable (Maggid Mishneh, based on Shabbat 103b).

lt is necessary for the Rambam to mention both other languages and other characters. Otherwise, one might think that with regard to other languages, one is liable only for writing words from other languages when one transliterates them into Hebrew characters—or conversely, that one is liable for writing with other characters only \when writing Hebrew words. With the wording he chose, the Rambam makes it clear that one is liable even when one writes words from another language in the characters of that language.
lt must be emphasized that there are authorities who differ with the Rambam’s decision. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 306:11) quotes the Or Zarua, who states that one is liable for writing only when one writes in the Assyrian script (i.e., the Hebrew script used for Torah scrolls) or in the classic Greek script. Note, however, the Noda BiY’hudah (Orach Chayim, Vol. 11, Responsum 32) and the Be’ur Halachah 306, who refute the Or Zarua’ s opinion and state that it is not accepted by others. And note the S’dei Chemed (ma’arechet kaf, sec. 111), who brings other opinions in support of the Or Zarua.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:3), the Rambam explains the term “signs” as referring to the use of letters as numbers—e.g., for one, for two.
The Maggid Mishneh interprets these “signs” as referring to symbols that are not letters, but are significant to a reader, such as the reversed nunnim found in the Torah, Numbers 10:35-36. (See also Halachah 17 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:7-8.)

Even when the letter he wrote completes a word when combined with the writing that existed previously. Since he has not written two letters on the Sabbath, he is not liable (Rashi, Shabbat 104b).

Superimposing his writing on top of a letter that had been written previously. Although this writing made the existent letters clearer, since nothing essentially new is achieved, the person is not liable (ibid). (See also the latter portion of Halachah 16 and notes.)

In the Assyrian script used for Torah scrolls and the like, a chet resembles two zeinim that are connected by two lines referred to as the ch’totrot.

Letters that cannot be read together are considered two separate units, and writing each of them a separate activity. Since the obligation for writing on the Sabbath is for writing two letters, as explained above, one is not liable unless the two letters can be read together.

fn his Commentary on the Mishn. ah (Shabbat 12:5), the Rambam emphasizes that letters must be on the same line to be able to read as a single unit. (See also Shabbat 104b, which emphasizes that the distance between the two letters can also be a significant factor.)

This resembles the letters written on the beams of the Sanctuary, the source for the prohibition against writing on the Sabbath.

The Maggid Mishneh states that this ruling, based on Shabbat 104b, applies even when it is necessary to fold the two parchments so that the two letters can be placed in juxtaposition to each other.

The word ma’aser means “tithes.” This abbreviation was often used to refer to money or produce that was ma’aser sheni, “the second tithe,” which could be used only to buy food to be eaten in Jerusalem. The same applies regarding other abbreviations.

The numerical equivalent of according to the accepted principles of gematria, Hebrew numerology.

See the notes and diagrams accompanying Halachah 11.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:8 mentions that a person who writes a zayin or any other of the letters ץג זנזפש that require taggim, “crowns,” without these crowns is not liable. From this halachah, it would appear that the Rambam does not accept this ruling, for the zeinim created when the connecting lines of a chet are divided do not have crowns.

As another possibility, Shabbat 104b mentions erasing the projection in the right corner of a dalet to create a reish.

Rashi, Shabbat 104b, interprets this to mean that the person holds a pen in his hand and turns his hand upside down to write.
Based on this source, the expression די רחאלכ is used throughout the Rabbinic literature on the Sabbath laws to mean “in an unusual manner.”

A person is liable for performing a forbidden labor on the Sabbath only when he does so in an ordinary manner. Although there is a Rabbinic prohibition against performing a forbidden labor in an unusual manner, one is not held liable.

The precise translation of the Rambam’s wording is “uses both of his hands with equal dexterity.” On this basis, there is room for question regarding a left-handed person who writes with his right hand, but less comfortably than he does with his left hand. 1s he liable for writing with his right hand on the Sabbath or not?

As mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 13, “Whenever one performs a labor that does not have a permanent effect on the Sabbath, one is not liable.” To apply a principle mentioned in the notes to that halachah, if the writing will remain on the Sabbath itself, even if it will fade afterwards, one is liable.
See also theBe’ur Halachah 340 who quotes the opinion ofthe Rashba (Shabbat 115b) which explains that permanency in this context refers to writing that will last an ordinary period of time.

In Hilchot Tefillin 1:4, the Rambam describes the preparation of ink as follows:
One collects the vapor of oils, of tar, of wax, or the like, [causes it to condense,] and kneads it together with sap from a tree and a drop of honey. It is moistened extensively, crushed until it is formed into flat cakes, dried, and then stored. When one desires to write with it, one soaks [the cakes of ink] in gallnut juice or the like and writes with it. Thus, if one attempts to rub it out, he would be able to.

The commentaries associate this with a tint produced from the residue of an oven.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:4, Megillah 2:2), the Rambam translates this term into Arabic. Rav Kapach states that the Arabic term he uses refers to red colored clay used for drawing.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam describes these substances, using Arabic terms which Rav Kapach translates as referring to saps from trees that are yellow and green in color. When they are mixed with gallnut juice, they turn black, as the Rambam mentions in Chapter 9, Halachah 14.

As mentioned previously, the forbidden labor of writing has its source in the letters written as symbols for the walls of. the Sanctuary.

Unless the writing is written with such substances and on such substances, the person’s activity is considered insignificant, for the writing would soon fade in any event.

A surface on which writing would be preserved, as mentioned in the previous halachah.

The writing is considered permanent, because the body’s heat is considered as an external force that wipes out writing that, in and of itself, would remain permanently.

Engraving is considered equivalent to writing—as is obvious from the law stated immediately afterwards. Nevertheless, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:4), the Rambam writes that the person is exempt, because engraving on human skin is not an ordinary way of writing.

From the Be’ur Halachah 340 and others, it appears that this refers to a mark that is made with a stylus or the like that will not remain permanently on the hide. (Note the contrast to Hilchot Gerushin 4:7.)

Letters written with ink are much more attractive and distinctive than letters written with vermilion. Nevertheless, letters written with vermilion are also significant. Hence, by tracing over the initial writing, one performs two activities: the nullification of the letters written previously (erasing) and the composition of new letters (writing).

To reinforce the previous writing. In this instance, one is not liable, as stated in Halachah 11.

Note the Be’ur Halachah 340, who questions whether one must make two designs to be held liable (as one is liable only when one writes two letters) or one is liable for making a single design. It is explained that from the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 7:2), it appears that a single design is sufficient.

See also Chapter 10, Halachah 16, and notes in regard to making forms on utensils.

Alternatively, one is liable if one erases a design to draw a different design in its place.

This is one of the 39 categories of labor forbidden on the Sabbath.

From this halachah and from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:2), it would appear that the category of labor of ruling lines is associated with writing only. This is somewhat difficult, because writing per se, was not performed in the construction of the Sanctuary. Rashi, Shabbat 75b, states that ruling lines was necessary to cut the hides carefully. According to his opinion, it is possible to say that ruling a line in order to saw in a straight line would be considered as the forbidden labor itself and not merely a derivative. See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 340:11.

As the lines of a Torah scroll are ruled.