Shevitat Asor - Chapter 3

Our Sages instituted this prohibition based Solomon’s description (1 Kings 2:26) of David’s affliction, which included being forced to go without washing (Yoma 77a).

With regard to the prohibition against washing on the Sabbath and holidays, a distinction is made between washing with hot water and washing with cold water, because that prohibition was instituted lest the keepers of the baths heat water on these holy days. On Yom Kippur, the prohibition was instituted to prohibit washing per se. In this regard, we find a verse (Proverbs 25:25), “Like cold water on a wearied soul,” including even cold water.

From this leniency, some authorities infer that the prohibition against washing is Rabbinic in origin. If its source had been in the Torah, the Sages would not have granted such a leniency. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that since the Torah’s prohibition applies only to washing for the sake of pleasure, washing for other reasons is permitted when necessary.

See Hilchot Melachim 2:5.

The Mishnah Berurah 613:26 mentions opinions that do not allow this leniency in the present age.

For it is only washing for the sake of pleasure that is forbidden, and not washing for the sake of cleanliness (Yoma 77b).

Yoma, ibid. explains that this refers to shibta, which Rashi interprets as meaning a spirit of impurity that rests on one’s hands after sleep. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 613:2) allows one to wash one’s hands upon arising in the morning.

This applied only in the ages when the people observed the laws of ritual purity. At present, since we do not possess the ashes of the red heifer, there is no way we can purify ourselves from the impurity contracted through contact with a human corpse, and we are all ritually impure. Hence, it is forbidden to immerse oneself.

I.e., in contrast to the era of Ezra, who ordained that a person who saw a nocturnal emission must immerse himself in the mikveh before reciting the Shema, praying, or engaging in Torah study. (See Hilchot Kri’at Shema 4:8, Hilchot Tefillah 4:4-6 and notes.)

For it is forbidden to pray while there is a trace of semen on one’s body.

I.e., although a seminal emission conveys ritual impurity and immersion in a mikveh removes that impurity, this is not of consequence in the present age.

Which can be removed only when the ashes of the red heifer are sprinkled on a person.

I.e., a person may accept a custom that requires more stringent conduct than that obligated by the letter of Torah law for various reasons. He may not, however, adopt any leniency in Torah law for such reasons.

This would also be done for the purpose of cooling off (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 613:9).

This is the explanation of the Rabbinic expression, טוֹפֵחַ עַל מְנָת לְהַטְפִּיחַ.

One may, however, use an empty container for this purpose (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

I.e., he must wring it out so that it will no longer be טוֹפֵחַ עַל מְנָת לְהַטְפִּיחַ, as explained in the previous halachah.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 613:9) forbids this, lest the person squeeze water from the cloth and thus perform one of the forbidden labors.

For it is a mitzvah to greet one’s teacher (Chaggigah 5b).

Since honoring one’s parents is a mitzvah.

For his intent is to perform the mitzvah and not to take pleasure in bathing.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 613:5) emphasizes that one should not enter water in which the current is fast-moving, because of the danger involved.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 613:8) states that even if there is a circuitous route that does not require one to pass through water, one may take a direct route through the water. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 613:13 and the Mishnah Berurah 613:22 differ, and prohibit passing through water if there is an alternative route, even one that is much longer.

Although guarding one’s produce is not a mitzvah, this leniency was granted because of a person’s concem for his money. ln this instance, the person is not allowed to retum through water on Yom Kippur (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 613:12).

Forcing the person to deviate from his ordinary pattern will remind him not to squeeze the water from his garments (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 613:8).

Yoma 77a also regards going without shoes as an affliction, based on Solomon’s statements describing David’s afflictions (1 Kings 2:26) cited previously, for 11 Samuel 15:30 describes how David walked barefoot when fleeing from Avshalom.

Our translation for שעם is based on the gloss of Rabbenu Manoach. He also offers an alternative meaning of the word, “tree bark.” ln modem Hebrew, שעם means cork.

The Mishnah Berurah 614:5 states that in his time, it was customary to wear socks and not shoes or sandals made of rubber or similar materials. Nevertheless, at present it has become customary to wear such shoes or sandals.

Refraining from any of the other four activities mentioned could affect the child’s health and growth. This is not true with regard to wearing shoes and sandals. On the contrary, children often go without shoes.

The halachic equivalence between a woman who has just given birth and a sick person is established in Hilchot Shabbat 2:14.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 614:3) also grants this leniency to a person who has a wound on his foot. The Ramah (loc. cit. :4) states that shoes may also be worn outside if the streets are very muddy.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 614:1) interprets this to mean that it is prohibited to anoint oneself even for purposes of cleanliness.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 610:1 explains that it is an obligation to honor Yom Kippur by kindling lights, just as it is a mitzvah to honor other holidays. Nevertheless, because of the fear that one might be prompted to engage in sexual relations, certain communities adopted the custom of nullifying this mitzvah in homes where a husband and wife live together. Pesachim 53b applies the verse (Isaiah 60:21) “And your nation are all righteous” to both customs.
In all communities, it is customary to light candles for Yom Kippur, either at home or in the synagogue. The above explanation clarifies the decision of the Ramah, who maintains that one should recite a blessing over these candles. There are, however, other explanations, and for this reason, there are authorities (see Sha’ar HaTziyun 610:5) who maintain that a blessing should not be recited.

See Hilchot Shabbat 5:1.