Shevitat Asor - Chapter One

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 165) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 317) both include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., Tishrei, which is the seventh month when reckoning from Nisan.

Shabbat 24b states that the word shabbaton, literally, "a day of rest," implies a positive mitzvah.

This is also considered to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 329) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 315)].

The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1510) notes that the Rambam uses the expression "willingly, as a conscious act of defiance" with regard to the transgressions of idolatry (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:1), the Sabbath laws (Hilchot Shabbat 1:1), and the laws of Yom Kippur. With regard to all other transgressions punishable by כרת, the Rambam merely states "as a conscious act of defiance."

The Radbaz explains that it is possible that the Rambam mentioned the concept of "willingly" with regard to these three transgressions because they are the first cases of כרת mentioned in the Mishneh Torah. After mentioning the concept on these three occasions, he does not consider that further repetition is necessary.

כרת means "cut off." Mo'ed Katan 28a relates that a person liable for כרת would die prematurely, before reaching the age of fifty. The Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1) emphasizes that being "cut off in this world" is not the sum total of Divine retribution for such a transgression. In addition, the person's soul is also cut off and prevented from reaching the world to come.

The Rambam uses this term to differentiate the sin offering required here from a קרבן עולה ויורד - a guilt offering - which differs depending on the financial status of the person bringing it. (See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4.)

The 39 labors forbidden on the Sabbath are listed in Hilchot Shabbat 7:1 and explained in the subsequent chapters there. Unlike the holidays, on which the forbidden labors involved in the preparation of food are permitted, on Yom Kippur these activities are forbidden.

The Or Sameach notes that in contrast to the remainder of the halachah, in this instance the Rambam does not refer to the day with the name Yom Kippur. He explains that the name Yom Kippur, meaning "the day of atonement," is not relevant to a person who performs a forbidden labor on this day. Since the person acts in contrast to the holy nature of the day, he is not granted atonement.

The commentaries explain that this refers to the activities defined as sh'vut, which are forbidden by the Torah. The specification of which activities should be included in this category was, however, made subject to our Sages' definitions. (See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 21-23.)

See Hilchot Shabbat 1:3. (See Hilchot Edut 18:6 for a definition of this punishment.)

This refers to the laws of muktzeh mentioned in Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 25-26.

This refers to the prohibitions mentioned in Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 24, which are not associated with forbidden labors, but are prohibited in order to make the Sabbath distinct from the other days of the week.

On a theoretical basis, there are commentaries that take issue with the Rambam's statements, explaining that there is another difference. On the Sabbath, we follow the principle of chiluk melachot, that one can incur liability for every forbidden labor as a separate entity. Therefore, if a person inadvertently performed two different types of forbidden labor, he would have to bring two sin offerings.

These authorities maintain that on Yom Kippur (as on the holidays) this principle does not apply, and one is liable for only a single sin offering even when one inadvertently performs several types of forbidden labor. (See Sha'agat Aryeh, Responsum 70.)

Mid-afternoon refers to minchah katanah, 3:30 PM (according to seasonal hours).

Earlier it is forbidden, lest one eat from the vegetable. Nevertheless, by this late hour one is conscious that the evening is approaching and will refrain from breaking the fast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 611:7).

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is the hardship a person would suffer if he had to labor to prepare food at night after fasting the entire day.

So as not to distinguish between this and the other Sabbaths of the year, and thereby to emphasize that the leniency was granted only because of the fast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 611:6).

Shabbat 115a relates that even in the time of the Talmud, this restriction was observed.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:1), the Rambam explains that since the connection between the body and the soul is established through nourishment, withholding such nourishment is considered an affliction to the soul. See Yoma 74b.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 164) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 313) both include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

This is also considered one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 196) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 316)].

It is an established tradition that there are only two positive commandments - circumcision and offering a Pesach sacrifice - whose lack of observance are punishable by karet. Therefore, the fact that eating on Yom Kippur is punishable by karet indicates that it violates a negative commandment [Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 196)].

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:1), the Rambam explains that the Torah mentions the concept of afflicting oneself on Yom Kippur five times. As such, the Oral Tradition (Yoma 76a) explains that there are five different activities forbidden on that day and cites (ibid. 76a-77a) various allusions to these five prohibitions. The terms he uses for allusions, asmachta'ot, indicates that he does not view the four prohibitions other than eating and drinking as having the status of a Torah commandment.

Similarly, the punishment that he states should be given for these activities, "stripes for rebellion," is the punishment received for transgressing a Rabbinic commandment.

[It must be noted that this matter was a question on which the Rambam deliberated. For an early edition of his Commentary on the Mishnah states that one should receive lashes for performing these activities, indicating that, at that time, he saw them as forbidden by the Torah itself. Similarly, the Rambam's wording in Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) appears to indicate that these prohibitions are forbidden by the Torah itself. This view is advanced by several authorities including Rabbenu Nissin, the Magen Avraham 611, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 611:2.]

Based on the explanations above, it would appear that the term "according to the Oral Tradition" as used in this halachah has a different meaning from that in the previous halachah. In the previous halachah, the term denoted an interpretation of a verse in the Torah. Therefore, the prohibition was given the status of a Torah commandment. In this halachah, the term refers to a concept that has been transmitted through a chain of tradition extending back to Moses. Nevertheless, it is a decree that does not stem from a Biblical verse and is therefore considered to be Rabbinic in origin.

Other Rabbinic authorities (Rabbenu Asher and the Ashkenazic authorities) clearly state that the prohibitions against these other activities are Rabbinic in nature. Therefore, certain leniencies are granted in their regard, as reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 1 (Kessef Mishneh).

The reference to the phrase "a Sabbath of Sabbaths" is taken from Yoma 74a. The interpretation is, however, the Rambam's.

Based on the concepts explained above - that the prohibition against the remaining four types of afflictions is Rabbinic in origin and is not based on the explanation of a verse in the Torah - the Ma'aseh Rokeach suggests amending the text to read, "'A Sabbath' from work; 'of Sabbaths' from these other matters." He supports this view by noting that in Halachah 1, the Rambam had cited this expression as a proof-text for the commandment to refrain from work on Yom Kippur.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 608:1) states that there is no limit to the amount of time one must add to the fast. This addition must, however, be made before (and after) beyn hash'mashot.

From the Rambam's citation of a proof-text, it is clear that the obligation to add time to the fast of Yom Kippur stems from the Torah itself. The Maggid Mishneh adds that the Rambam's wording indicates that the obligation to add "from the mundane to the sacred" - i.e., to include some of the previous day in the fast - applies only with regard to the prohibition against eating and drinking, but not to the prohibition against performing labor.

He mentions that other authorities do not share this opinion and maintain that this obligation applies also to the prohibition against work, and that it applies also on the Sabbath and on other holidays aside from Yom Kippur.

The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1486) differs with the Maggid Mishneh. Although he agrees that the fact that, in his discussion of the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath, the Rambam does not mention the need to add "from the mundane to the sacred" supports the Maggid Mishneh's view, he is reluctant to state that the Rambam differs with all the other authorities on this issue.

(See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XV, which explains the difference between the two perspectives. If we derive the concept of adding "from the mundane to the sacred" from Yom Kippur, the obligation revolves around the person, a chiyuv gavra in yeshivah terminology. If, by contrast, the obligation is derived from the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, it is a function of the cheftza, a result of the atmosphere of Sabbath holiness that prevents labor from being performed.)

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 608:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 608:3 explain that this applies only when one is absolutely sure that the women will not accept the admonishment. If there is the possibility that they will accept the admonishment and modify their conduct, they should be admonished.

The Maggid Mishneh and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 608:2) explain that this refers to any prohibition that is not explicitly stated in the Torah, even if it has its source in the interpretation of one of the Torah's verses.

If, however, a prohibition is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, rebuke should be given even when one is certain that the person committing the transgression will not accept the reproof. Further laws governing the situations when and how rebuke should be given are mentioned in Hilchot De'ot 6:7-8.