Halachipedia - User contributions [en]

Havdalah

2024-09-01T04:23:46Z

Gsilver2:

{{Okay}}
[[Image:Havdalah.jpg|200px|right]]
Havdalah is the ceremony of separation between every [[Shabbat]] and weekday, [[Yom Tov]] and weekday, or [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]]. Havdalah is said after Shabbat and Yom Tov during Shemone Esrei of maariv within the bracha of ata chonen, and when on Yom Tov, within the bracha of ata vchartanu. It is recited another time over a cup of wine.
==Obligation==

#There's a dispute whether the obligation to recite havdalah is of biblical or rabbinic nature. The obligation to recite havdalah over wine is certainly rabbinic.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that the command of "Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]" (Shemot 20:7) - to remember the Shabbat - includes the positive mitzvot of [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] and Havdalah every week, as these mitzvot serve to mark the beginning and end of shabbat and distinguish it from the rest of the week. Other Rishonim agree with Rambam, including Ravi’ah [[Brachot]] 3:1, Ritvah as quoted by the Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 55, and Sefer Hachinuch Mitvah 31. However, Tosfot (Tosfot Nazir 4a s.v. My Hee in name of Rabbenu Tam) and the Rosh (Sh"t 11:3) hold that only kiddush is deorayta, but havdalah is drabbanan. Mishna Brurah 296:1 quotes both opinions and adds that if one said havdalah in [[Tefillah]], then the havdalah on the wine is certainly drabbanan.</ref>
#Even though one says havdalah during davening at maariv (ata chonantanu), one must still recite havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>The gemara brachot 33a states that one who says havdalah during davening (as one is supposed to do), must still say havdalah over a cup of wine as well (המבדיל בתפילה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס). This is codified by Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:6, and Shulchan Aruch 294:1.</ref>

===Havdalah for Yom Tov===

#After [[Yom Tov]], which is followed by a regular weekday or a day of [[Chol HaMoed]], one should say Havdalah. However, if a [[Yom Tov]] is followed by a [[Shabbat]], there is no Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Chullin 26b, Gemara [[Shabbat]] 114b, Rambam [[Shabbat]] 5:21 and 29:18, Shulchan Aruch 491:1</ref>
#Havdalah at the end of [[Yom Tov]] only consists of the bracha of hamavdil, and there is no bracha of [[besamim]] or ner.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:1, Mishna Brurah 491:1</ref>

===When Motzei Shabbat is a Yom Tov===

#If motzei shabbat is yom tov, one may use the Yom Tov candles for havdalah.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6)</ref>
#It is preferable not to hold the two candles together.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6) based on Biur Halacha 514:2 s.v. veyechabeh. Yom Tov Sheni Khilchato ch. 1 fnt. 67 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted from Rav Efraim Greenblatt) as explaining that although generally we prefer to use a torch with two or more wicks for havdalah, on Yom Tov we avoid this. The reason is that on yom tov holding two candles together is likely going to come to an issue of extinguishing one of the candles more quickly. Even if they are touching it is permitted to detach them. Yet he also cites Rabbi Eider (Halachos of Shabbos 266 fnt. 34) who in the name of Rav Moshe permits putting them together. He concludes with a citation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 669 and YD 1 that even on a regular motzei Shabbat two candles next to one another is sufficient, yet we don't generally follow that opinion (Magen Avraham 298:4).</ref>

=== Who is Obligated? ===

==== Women ====
#There is a dispute as to whether women are obligated in havdalah.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that havdalah is a positive biblical mitzvah, just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]]. [[Maggid]] Mishna (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) understands from the Rambam that women are obligated in havdalah just like they are obligated in [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (since we compare "zachor" to "shamor"). [[Maggid]] Mishna suggests that even according to those who argue on the Rambam and hold that havdalah is only drabanan, women are still obligated, since presumably the rabbis instituted havdalah to be just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון). Beit Yosef cites from Rabbenu Yonah who agrees that women are obligated in havdala just like kiddush.

*However, Beit Yosef 296 cites from the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Havdalah 18) that women shouldn't make havdalah for themselves since perhaps they aren't obligated and it would be a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Brurah 296:34 explains that the reason why women wouldn't be obligated is if we view havdalah as a regular positive time-bound mitzvah, from which women are exempt. Even though havdala is connected to shabbat, since its actual performance takes place after shabbat, it is not viewed as fundamentally a "shabbat mitzvah" and hence not included in the hekesh of "zachor v'shamor". Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 296:8 rules as Stam (anonymous opinion) that women are obligated in Havdalah.</ref>
##According to Sephardim women may make havdalah for themselves.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27. </ref>
##Some Ashkenazim say that women should not recite [[havadalah]] for themselves, while others say that they may.<ref>The Rama 296:8 states that women shouldn't recite Havdalah for themselves, in order to be chosheish for the shita that perhaps they are not obligated in havdalah, and so saying it would constitute a bracha l'vatala. However, this is very difficult to understand. We know that in general the Ashkenazi shita is that women are allowed to make brachot on mitzvot in which they are not obligated (such as lulav or shofar), so why should havdalah be any different? Indeed, the Bach thinks this question is so strong that he rejects the Rama and concludes that women may recite havdalah lechatchila. </ref> Many say that preferably a woman should hear havdalah from a man to avoid questions of bracha l'vatala, but if she cannot find someone from whom to hear havdalah, then she should recite it for herself.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 agrees to the Bach. Mishna Brurah 296:35 concludes that a woman should not recite Havdalah for herself unless she can't find someone to hear Havdalah from. In 296:36 he writes that certainly a woman should recite it for herself if she can't find someone else to recite for her, or the only person available to say it for her already fulfilled his obligation (since for him to repeat havdalah for her would constitute a bracha l'vatala if she is, in fact, not obligated). See [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/740210/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Havdalah_for_Women audio shiur] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.</ref>
###When a women makes a havdala, she should certainly recite the brachot of hagefen and besamim.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 explains that since these two brachot are made over receiving enjoyment from something (ברכת הנהנין), and are not brachot for the mitzvah of havdala (ברכת המצוה), they may certainly be made by anyone. Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) cites this Magen Avraham approvingly.</ref>
###Most say that a woman can even recite the beracha on the fire.<ref>Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) discusses whether according to the opinion that women are obligated in havdalah, would they also be obligated in the bracha on the ner. Perhaps since this bracha was really established by chazal to commemorate the fact that fire was created on motzei shabbat, and is thus not intrinsically connected to havdalah (but is rather just said along with havdalah over the cup of wine), it is like any other positive time-bound mitzvah in which women are exempt. One proof that the bracha on the ner isn't really connected to havdalah inherently is the fact that if one doesn't have a fire one is not obligated to go find one, but can just say havdalah on the cup of wine without it (Shulchan Aruch 298:1). Another proof is that one may say the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat outside the context of havdala, whenever one finds a fire. He concludes that they probably are not obligated in the bracha of ner even if they are obligated in havdalah.

*Even though they are not obligated in the bracha of ner, and even though it is a birchat hamitzvah and not a birchat hanehenin, nonetheless one would think that it should be like any other bracha on a mitzvah, which ashkenazim hold that women may make. Indeed, Sh"t Iggerot Moshe CM 2:47:2, Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 14:43, Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27, all pasken this way. See also Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 296 footnote 34), which cites Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievskt, and the Shoneh Halachot as agreeing. </ref> Others disagree.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 58:16 </ref>

==== Children ====
#Once a child has reached the age of [[Chinuch]] (5 or 6), the parents should train him in hearing havdalah.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Dinei [[Chinuch]] Katan pg. 177 </ref>

==Havdalah in Tefilah==

#See the [[Atta Chonantanu]] page.
#If [[Motzei Shabbat]] is a [[Yom Tov]], in middle of Atta Bechartanu, one should insert VeTodiyanu in place of [[Atta Chonantanu]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:2, Mishna Brurah 491:4. see [[Atta_Chonantanu#VeTodienu | Vetodienu]] </ref>

==Havdalah in Shul==

#The chazan recites havdalah in shul on behalf of those who have no wine or who will not recite havdalah for themselves at home.<ref>Tur 295, Shulchan Aruch 295:1.</ref>
##Whoever wishes can listen to the chazan's havdalah in shul and fulfill his obligation, even though he is not holding a cup of wine.
###It is a widespread minhag in our times for the chazan to recite havdalah in shul, and there is no need to protest the custom. It should be made clear to the congregation, however, that everyone must recite Havdalah at home on behalf of his family members who have not heard it in the synagogue, even though he himself did hear it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 1 </ref>
##If one plans on saying havdalah at home for his family, then he should not have kavana to fulfill his obligation with the chazan.<ref>Mishna Brurah 295:6 explains that one who does have wine should not fulfill his obligation with the chazan, but rather should wait until he gets home, such that he will be able to say havdalah for his wife and kids. He refers one to the Shulchan Aruch 296:7, who writes that if one doesn't have kavana to be yotzeh havdalah in shul, then they aren't yotzeh and should say it at home. Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes that it's proper for every person to make havdalah at home for their family.

*Does one have to actively have kavana to NOT be yotzeh in shul, or does it suffice to simply not have active kavana to BE yotzeh? The Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes in the name of the Levush that nowadays since the common practice is that people recite havdalah again when they get home to their family, the default is that people do not have kavana to be yotzeh in shul. Therefore, one does not need to actively think to themselves during the chazan's recital of havdalah that they don't want to be yotzeh. Similarly, one who does want to be yotzeh with the chazan's havdalah, has to actively have in mind that they are fulfilling their obligation with his recital.

*If the husband does have kavana to fulfill his obligation in shul, then he may not recite havdalah for his wife and kids under the age of chinuch at home, since this might constitute a bracha l'vatala (see Mishna Brurah 296:36). In such a case, the wife, should say havdalah for herself. See above section on Women and Havdalah. </ref>
#The opinion of the Geonim is that whoever recites [[Kiddush]] or Havdalah must drink at least melo lugmav of the wine, and if he does not, then he has not fulfilled his obligation. A person should be strict for this opinion.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 271:13 paskens that one needs to drink a m'lo lugmav of the cup of kiddush, which he thinks is the majority of a reviit. The Mishna Brurah 296:9 cites from the Magen Avraham that the same applies to havdalah as well. </ref>
##Therefore the person who is chosen to recite Havdalah in the synagogue must be someone who will be able to drink melo lugmav. If the only person capable of reciting Havdalah is someone who cannot drink that much wine, then he should recite Havdalah, taste a sip of the wine, and then give it to another person who can drink melo lugmav. He should inform that person beforehand that he should have in mind when listening to the blessing of boreh peri hagefen that he will drink from the cup afterward.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 3 </ref>
#If someone is not sure whether or not he will have wine available at home for havdalah, he should listen to the chazan recite havdalah in shul, but stipulate in his mind that he wishes to fulfill his obligation only if he has no wine at home. Then, if he finds that there is wine available at home, he may recite havdalah for himself in accordance with the condition he made.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 4 </ref>

==Havdalah on a Cup of Wine==

=== The Order of Havdalah ===
#The order of the [[Brachot]] of Havdalah is Yayin (Hagefen), [[Besamim]], Ner (Meorei HaEsh), Havdalah (Hamavdil).<ref>The Mishna Brachot 51b cites a debate between beit shamai and beit hillel with respect to the proper order of the four brachot associated with havdalah (hagafen on the wine, besamim on the incense, me'orei ha'eish on the fire, and havdalah itself). The gemara 52a cites a beraita in which Rebbe Yehudah explains the position of beit hillel as follows: yayin, besamim, ner, havdalah. The gemara explains that the reason why havdalah comes last is because we want to delay the leaving of shabbat as much as possible. Shulchan Aruch 296:1 paskens like this. </ref>
#The custom is to add several pesukim prior to Havdalah for a good sign. For the full Ashkenazic text see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.aish.com%2Fmisc%2Fhavdallah.pdf here]. For the full Sephardic text see [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/zmirot/motsaey-2.htm here].<ref>*The Ashkenazic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי לי לישועה: ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה: ליהוה הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה: יהוה צבאות עמנו משגב לנו אלהי יעקב סלה: יהוה צבאות אשרי אדם בטח בך: יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר, כן תהיה לנו: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם יהוה אקרא:
*The source for the Ashkenazic text is the following: the Rama 296:1 writes that before the Bracha of Havdalah one should say Yishaya 12:2-3, Ester 8:16, Tehillim 116:13. The Aruch HaShulchan 296:8 adds 4 more pesukim after the ones in Yishaya from Tehillim 3:9, 46:8, 84:13, and 20:10. He also adds that after Ester 8:16 one should say 'כן תהיה לנו'.
*The Sephardic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה' אקרא: אנא ה' הושיעה נא אנא ה' הצליחה נא: הצליחנו הצליח דרכינו הצליח לימודינו וכו' ושלח ברכה רוחה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידינו כדכתיב ישא ברכה מאת ה' וצדקה מאלהי ישענו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששק ויקר: וכתיב ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו, כן יהיה עמנו תמיד: ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', כן נמצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלוקים ואדם: אלהא דמאיר עננו: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום:
*The source for the Sephardic text is the following: Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 449-50) writes that the Sephardic minhag is to say the following order before Havdalah: Tehillim 116:13, 118:25, a [[prayer]] beginning with הצליחנו and ending with a Tehillim 24:5, Ester 8:16, Shmuel 1:18:14, Beresheet 6:8, a [[prayer]] beginning with אלהא דמאיר, and Devarim 4:4.</ref>
#If the cup of havdalah falls and spills out completely they should get a new cup of wine and recite a new hagefen. If they already got involved in another activity (hesech hadaat) they need to recite havdalah again.<ref>Piskei Teshuvot 296:11</ref>

=== Wine vs Other Beverages ===
#If one has wine, wine has precedence over any other drink.<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:8, citing the Ohr Zaruah.</ref>
##Red wine is preferable, but white wine is permissible if only white wine is available.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 82 </ref>
##One may use grape juice for havdalah.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 408 writes that grape juice is practically like wine and is thus more preferable than chamar medina; Chazon Ovadia v. 1 p. 99 writes that grape juice is fit for kiddush and havdalah based on the Gemara Bava Batra 97a. He ends that even though it is pasteurized it is still like wine for all intents and purposes since it tastes like non-fermented wine (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 272:3). This is also in Yalkut Yosef 202 fnt. 8. Listen to [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 36)] who seems to contradict this as he says that grape juice is unfit for havdalah.</ref>
##One may not use bread for havdalah, even though one may use it for kiddush Friday night.<ref>Tur 296 citing Rav Amram Gaon. Beit Yosef explains that the Friday night kiddush is connected to the meal and so it's reasonable that bread would be a valid substitute for kiddush. But havdalah on motzei shabbat is not connected to any seudah and therefore one may not make havdalah on bread. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 296:2. </ref>
#However, if one prefers chamar medina (see below section), then they may make havdalah on it, even if they have wine available.<ref>The Rama 296:2 writes that the minhag is to make havdalah on motzei pesach on beer since at that point it will have been over a week since drinking beer, so people are very excited about drinking it (it's more חביב - precious). The Biur Halacha (296:2 s.v. im hu chamar medina) learns from this Rama that any time one prefers chamar medina to wine, then they may make havdalah on it. He explains that when it comes to kiddush, there is a debate in the rishonim whether one can fulfill their obligation with chamar medina, and so we try to avoid it. However, everyone agrees that one can fulfill their obligation of havdalah with chamar medina, and so we are less hesitant to do so. </ref>

==== What if There's no Wine / Grape Juice? ====
#If there is no wine or grape juice available, then one can use chamar medina for havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 296:2</ref> What is chamar medina?{{Definition of Chamar Medina}}
===How Much to Drink===

# The one reciting havdalah should ideally drink a reviyit, in order to be able to recite a bracha achrona. After the fact, if they drank a melo lugmav, it is sufficient (and they just shouldn't make a bracha achrona). If someone drank only a tiny sip of the wine and not a melo lugmav, some say that they did not fulfill their obligation even after the fact,<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:9, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 60:36</ref> while others hold that one fulfilled the mitzvah but just not in the ideal way.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 190:4, Pri Megadim EA 271:24, Aruch Hashulchan 296:15, Kaf Hachaim 296:16, Or Letzion 2:20:7, Tzitz Eliezer 19:21:1, Yachava Daat 3:40, Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat 1-4, 5773 edition, 296:27), Piskei Teshuvot 296:11, and Rav Ben Tzion Felman in Moriya (257-259 p. 114) quoting Rav Aryeh Leib Shteinmann. Avnei Darech 9:40 rules that after the fact, if the one who made havdalah didn't drink the wine, those who heard it from him still fulfill their mitzvah, but if they want to be machmir to hear havdalah again from someone else then they can. He cites Migdanot Eliyahu 2:24 quoted Rashi, Raavan, and Baal Haitur that melo lugmav isn't maakev for havdalah. He quotes several other sources to this effect: Kaf Hachaim 296:15, Me'at Mayim 73, and Pekudat Eliezer 271 s.v. vtzarich li iyun.</ref>
# Those listening to the havdalah initially should not talk until after the one who recited havdalah drank melo lugmav. After the fact, if they talked after he drank a sip they fulfilled their obligation.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:257</ref>

=== Besamim ===
#What if there are no besamim?
##If someone doesn't have fragrant spices for besamim, one doesn't have to go out of his way to get them, and can recite havdalah without them.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:1, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 130. The gemara brachot 53b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of rav that one need not seek out a fire to make a bracha on motzei shabbat, in the way in which we typically try to seek out mitzvot. The Rosh 8:3 explains that this is because the bracha on fire is just a remembrance that fire was first created on motzei shabbat. He then says that all the more so one should not have to seek out besamim, since the whole point of besamim is just to restore the person's soul on motzei shabbat (להשבת נפשו). </ref>
##If one made havdalah without besamim, but gets them later on Motzei Shabbat, he can recite the bracha then.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:5 rules that the mitzvah of besamim is only on Motzei Shabbat. The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 adds that if it was omitted in havdalah it can be recited afterwards until Olot Hashachar based on the Eshel Avraham.</ref>
#What exactly is the nusach of the bracha?
##The Ashkenaz minhag is to make Boreh Minei Besamim (בורא מיני בשמים) - the generic bracha for fragrance - irrespective of what is actually being used for besamim at Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1 explains that we always just use this bracha since it can in theory be said on any spice, and we don't want the masses getting confused amongst all the possible variations of brachot on smells.</ref>
##According to Sephardim, one should make the appropriate bracha for that type of besamim.
###E.g. If it's a tree, then "boreh atzei besamim", and if it's a grass then "boreh isvei besamim".<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19) </ref>
#What type of spices should be used?
##There is a Sephardic practice to use hadasim when possible.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:4. Mishna Brurah 297:8 explains that this is referring to the hadas from the lulav that was used on sukkot, the idea being that since it was already used for a mitzvah, it's fitting to use it for other mitzvot as well. Rama notes that many times the hadas is too dried out to really smell like anything, and therefore it's best to just add it to a mix of other spices, but not to use the hadas exclusively.</ref>
##As mentioned above, Ashkenazim always make the bracha of "minei besamim", and so it is proper to use something which actually has that bracha, such as cloves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19), The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
##It is a nice thing to have a designated spice box of besamim for havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:10 cites from the Tur that Rabbeinu Efraim used to have a glass box filled with spices that he designated for this purpose. Even though one can in theory use any spice around the house for havdalah, the Mishna Brurah concludes that it's a mitzvah min hamuvchar (ideal practice) to designate spices for the mitzvah, and that this is indeed the common minhag in klal yisroel. </ref>
# Someone who can't smell should not recite the bracha on besamim, unless he is reciting havdalah for someone else who can smell.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:5, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
# If one isn't sure if the spice has a smell, one may smell it in advance without a bracha.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 132 citing Kaf Hachaim 216:3. He adds that this was the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein to smell the besamim before the havdalah to check if it smelled. </ref>
## If the spice container is old and in fact doesn't smell and one only realizes after the bracha, the bracha he recited is invalid and the hagefen was also interrupted. Therefore, he should recite another hagefen and a new besamim on another spice if it is available.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 133 </ref>

=== Fire ===
# What if one doesn't have fire?
## One need not go out of their way to try to find fire to say the bracha of "boreh me'orei ha'eish" on it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:1. Mishna Brurah 298:1 explains that the reason we say a bracha on fire on motzei shabbat is because the gemara in pesachim 54b relates that Hashem first showed Adam Harishon how to make fire on motzei shabbat, and so we make a bracha on it to commemorate this event. Since the only reason for this bracha is to commemorate this event, it is not critical to make it, and thus one need not burden themselves seeking out a fire on motzei shabbat. </ref>
## If one made havdalah without fire, but gets fire later on motzei shabbat, he should make the bracha then.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:3</ref>
# Turning off the (electric) lights
##A person needs to be able to benefit from the fire in order to recite the bracha over it.<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one can't make the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat until he benefits from it. The gemara 53b cites a debate whether this is meant to be literal or not. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that one need not actually be close enough to the fire to benefit, but rather that it just needs to be a fire big enough that one could in theory benefit if he was close enough. Rava argues that the mishna is literal, and chizkiya explains that this means that one needs to be close enough to be able to distinguish between two different types of coins. The Beit Yosef cites a machloket rishonim regarding how to pasken. The Rashba paskens like rav yehudah (don't need to be close to the fire), but the Rif and Rosh just cite the mishna with no clarification, implying that it should be read literally like rava (need to be close enough to benefit). The Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:25 explicitly paskens like rava as explained by chizkiyah. The Maggid Mishna clarifies that even rava doesn't actually require one to benefit from the light. One need not literally use it to distinguish between two coins. Rather, one needs to be close enough such that if he had two coins in his hand, he could distinguish between them.</ref> Therefore, some turn off the electric lights when making Havdalah.<ref>Rivevot Efraim 2:115:32 citing Teshuvot Vehanhagot 6:90.</ref>
##However, others hold that the strict halacha doesn't require turning off the lights.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 2 p. 439, Yalkut Yosef 298:10 Shabbat v. 1 p. 477. See Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 12, who cites that the practice of the Chazon Ish was to leave the electric lights on. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 49)] explains that one need not turn off the electric lights, since all that is required is that one be close enough to the fire to be able (in theory) to benefit from the light and see the difference between different coins (but one need not actually benefit from the fire, and thus the electric lights can remain on).</ref>
#Where to look?
##The minhag is to look at one's fingernails during the havdalah in order to indicate that one is getting benefit from the candle, to see the difference between one's nails and flesh.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 298:3, Zohar 2:208b:2</ref>
##One needs to stand close enough to the fire such that he could in theory benefit from it.
###Therefore, if one is in a big room, one should try to get closer to the fire.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:13.</ref>
###If one can't get close, then they should have in mind not to be yotzeh the bracha on fire, and then get closer after havdalah and make the bracha on the fire themselves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:13 (at the end)</ref>
#What kind of fire?
##Two wicks:
###It is preferable that one make the bracha on an "avuka" (lit: torch).<ref>The gemara pesachim 103b states that it is ideal to use an "avuka" for havdala. Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:26 cites this. Maggid Mishna explains that an "avuka" is a fire that has a lot of wood and a lot of flames. Shulchan Aruch 298:2 paskens this. Perhaps the idea is that a more substantive fire is more impressive and thus helps one better appreciate the chesed that Hashem did by showing Adam Harishon how to make fire. </ref>
###A candle that has two wicks (or two candles that one holds together such that their flames coalesce) is halachically equivalent to an avuka.<ref>Rama 298:2. Mishna Brurah 298:8 adds that if one takes two separate candles but just holds them together such that their flames touch, this is also considered an avuka.</ref>
##Electric light:
###Some poskim allow one to use an electric light in place of a havdalah candle in a time of need.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6, Az Nidberu 8:2, Rivevot Ephraim 3:599. see also Mishpitei Uziel OC 1:9 </ref>
####In fact, it is reported that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky would always use an electric bulb for havdalah in order to demonstrate how strongly he felt that electricity is to be treated exactly like fire from the perspective of halacha.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6. Sh"t Nachalat Shimon 15 says this was the practice of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik </ref>
####Even among the authorities who permit the use of electric lights if need be, many disqualify the use of fluorescent bulbs, as they work differently than standard light bulbs.<ref>Hachashmal L’or Hahalacha 3:88 </ref>
###Nevertheless, there are those authorities who discourage the use of an electric light for havdalah.<ref>Har Tzvi 2:114, Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:39, Maharshag 2:107, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Raphael Baruch Toledano pg. 323. One argument they make is that the blessing recited upon the havdalah candle includes the word "fire", which seems to imply the need for actual fire, not merely light. </ref>
##Fire that "rested":
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that was lit on shabbat by a Jew or nonJew.<ref>The gemara brachot 52b cites a beraita that one may only make havdala on a flame which was "shavat" (lit: rested). Rashi explains that this means that the flame can't have been lit in a prohibited manner. Certainly then, if a Jew lights the flame on shabbat, one may not use it for havdala. However, one might have thought that if a nonJew lights it on shabbat, it would be allowed, since nonJews aren't supposed to keep shabbat! Nonetheless, the Tur explains that even if it was lit by a nonJew, it's considered to not be "shavat", since it was prohibited for a Jew to light it at that time. Shulchan Aruch 298:5 paskens this way. Thus the flame has to have either been lit since before shabbat, lit after shabbat ended, or lit on shabbat for the purpose of pikuach nefesh. </ref>
###The flame need not have been lit on erev shabbat in order to make havdalah on it (in contrast to Yom Kippur, which does have this extra requirement).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:8. Mishna Brurah 298:26 explains that on motzei shabbat we make a bracha on fire to commemorate its inception when Hashem showed Adam Harishon how to make it (see gemara pesachim 54a). Therefore, a fire created on motzei shabbat is perfectly suitable for the job. However, on motzei yom kippur we make a bracha on fire to demonstrate how yom kippur is different from other yomim tovim (in which one may use fire to cook), and thus it's specifically through a fire that was around during yom kippur (but just not in use) that this can be accomplished.</ref>
##Fire made for the purpose of light:
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that wasn't lit for the purpose of giving light<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one may not make the bracha on a fire that was lit to give honor to a deceased individual. The gemara 53a explains that this is a problem since one may only make a bracha on a fire that was lit for the purpose of giving light. </ref> (e.g. it was lit to give honor to an important person or place<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:11 discusses making the bracha on the flame in the shul. The determining factor is whether this light is merely for honor (either of the shul itself or of some important person who davens therein), or for light. The Mishna Brurah 298:30 states from the Rosh that one may not make the bracha on the ner tamid, since this is clearly just for the honor of the shul, as indicated by the fact that it is lit during the day as well. </ref>, to cook with<ref>See Shulchan Aruch 298:10 based on gemara brachot 53a.</ref>, for warmth, etc.).
##Fire behind glass
###There is a debate whether one may make the bracha on a fire that one sees behind glass, and so ideally one should be able to actually see the flames.<ref>The Beit Yosef cites a yerushalmi that one has to both be able to see the flame (רואה את השלהבת) and also have the ability to benefit from the flame (משתמש לאורה) in order to make the bracha of "me'orei ha'eish" on it. The yerushalmi gives a few examples which wouldn't satisfy these requirements, and one such an example is a fire inside of an "aspaklarya" (lit: looking glass of some sort). The Shulchan Aruch 298:15 paskens this way. However, the Magen Avraham 298:20 cites from the Rashba that if the fire is behind glass, this is still ok, since the fire is visible behind the glass and one can still benefit from its light. The Beit Yosef himself cites this Rashba, but is bothered how he seemingly is paskening against the aforementioned yerushalmi. The Magen Avraham defends the Rashba by suggesting that the yerushalmi was never saying that one can't use an aspaklarya, but the Biur Halacha 298:15 finds this reading of the yerushalmi difficult. Instead, he suggests that the Rashba thinks that the bavli argues on the yerushalmi, and he simply paskens like the Bavli. However, he conludes (see also Mishna Brurah 298:37) that since many poskim are machmir like the Shulchan Aruch, one should not be lenient in this matter, and should make sure the flame is visible (not behind glass) when making the bracha. </ref>
###One need not remove their eyeglasses when making the bracha.<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 30 cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen and the Ketzos Hashulchan who are bothered why the minhag is that people don't remove their glasses, given that the conclusion of the Mishna Brurah (see previous note) was to be machmir (like the Shulchan Aruch against the Rashba) not to have the flame behind glass. They cite from Rav Nissim Karelitz that since the eyeglasses are batel to the person wearing them, they aren't considered to be covering up the flame, and so we look at the flame as if it is still fully exposed (in contrast to when the flame itself is behind glass). </ref>

==Timing==

=== Saying Havdalah Early ===
#If one is has an extreme need, such as a need to travel to the end of the [[Techum]] for the purpose of performing a mitzvah immediately after [[Shabbat]], one may pray [[Arvit]] starting from Plag [[Mincha]] (ten and three quarter hours into the day). In such a case one may also say havdalah early, but one may not say the bracha on the candle (meorei ha'eish). Even in such a case, it is certainly forbidden to do melacha (activity which is forbidden on [[Shabbat]]) until [[Tzet HaKochavim]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 293:3 </ref>

=== Until When Can One Say Havdalah? ===
#If one forgot to say havdalah on Motzei Shabbat, one can say it until Tuesday.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 299:6. The Shulchan Aruch cites another opinion that one may only say havdala up until Sunday evening, this is only brought as a "yesh omrim", and the Rama explicitly paskens leniently like the stam. Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer 6:48:13) was concerned about safek brachot and wrote that one couldn't say havdala after Sunday, but he later retracted (Yabia Omer 7:47) and followed Shulchan Aruch, since the machloket is about the mitzvah and not the bracha. Yalkut Yosef 299:7 writes that one who recites the bracha past Sunday isn't scorned. However, in a shiur given on [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Motzei Shabbat (Matot Masei 5778 min 44-47)], he seemed to support the last ruling of Rav Ovadia.</ref>

==Standing vs Sitting for Havdalah==

#The Sephardic minhag is to sit for havdalah. However, the Ashkenazic minhag is to stand.<ref>The mishna brachot 42a says that only when everyone is "reclining" is one person able to make a bracha on the bread to exempt the others who are eating. Rashi explains that reclining lends the meal a permanence (kvi'ut). Tosfot brachot 43a is bothered how the minhag is to stand during [[Havadalah]], as this seemingly should prevent one person from being motzi others, as there is no kvi'ut (nowadays sitting accomplishes kvi'ut since we don't recline while eating). Tosfot suggests that perhaps since havdala is a mitzvah, everyone is "kove'ah" themselves to listen to the mitzvah, and therefore they can also be yotzeh in the bracha of hagafen on the wine. However, tosfot concludes that ideally one should sit for havdala to avoid the issue. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch 296:6 rules that one should sit during Havdalah. However, Rama 296:6 and the Gra (Maaseh Rav pg 103, #150) write that the Ashkenazic practice is to stand for Havdalah. Mishna Brurah 296:27 explains that the reason for the Ashkenazic minhag is to escort the [[Shabbat]] queen out, and escorting must be done standing. He adds that one can fulfill the obligation of others even when standing because everyone is assembled expressed for that purpose and has kavana to fulfill their obligation (like tosfot said). Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuva Siman 3 quoted in back of Radiance of [[Shabbos]]) writes that his personal minhag was to sit like his father's minhag, but because of the rishonim who hold that one may stand, one should not change one's minhag. The Dirshu Mishna Brurah 296 footnote 24 cites that the Chafetz Chaim used to stand for havdala. </ref>

==Eating / Doing Work Before Havdalah==

#Eating
## One may not eat until one makes havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:1</ref>
## This prohibition begins starting at sunset on Saturday, as this begins the period of bein hashmashot according to many opinions, and so one is now safek obligated in havdalah.<ref>Magen Avraham 299:1, Mishna Brurah 299:1 unlike Taz 299:1 who allows eating during ben hashemashot.</ref>
## One may still drink water.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:1</ref>
## One may continue eating if they began their meal before sunset.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:1. This certainly is true if one washed and made motzi before sunset. If one was eating fruits only (or other non-mezonos foods), then they would have to stop once sunset comes (even if this was their seudat shlishit). See Dirshu Mishna Brurah 299 footnote 14 citing many poskim. If one was eating mezonos foods to fulfill seudat shlishit, then there is a debate whether one would have to stop at sunset or not. The Aruch Hashulchan 299:5 says that you would have to stop eating at sunset, but the Ohr Letzion (cited in aforementioned dirshi footnote) says that one may keep eating since this is kavu'a given that it is a substantive food and one is eating it for seudat shlishit.</ref>
## If one made a mistake and ate before havdalah, he can still make havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:5</ref>
#Doing Work
##Before one says havdalah, one may not do any melacha.<ref name=":0">Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:10 based on gemara shabbat 150b. </ref>
##If one made havdalah in [[Tefillah]] (ata chonantanu), one may do melacha.<ref name=":0" /> However, one still may not eat until making havdalah on a cup of wine.<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:35</ref>
##If one needs to do melacha before saying havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one should say "Hamavdil bein kodesh lechol" (which is not a bracha) and then do melacha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:10 </ref> Some say that the correct girsa is "Baruch hamavdil etc.".<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:34 citing the Levush</ref>
###One shouldn't say "Baruch hamavdil ben kodesh lechol" in a bathroom.<ref>Avnei Yishpeh 6:10:1 writes that one shouldn't say hamavdil ben kodesh lechol in a bathroom since it is doing a mitzvah and similar to divrei kedusha. Dor Hamelaktim v. 2 p. 1072 quotes this from Rav Chaim Kanievsky as well. However, it quotes Minchat Shabbat who permits it.</ref>
###If one needs to, one should say "Hamavdil ben kodesh lchol" without the word baruch.<ref>Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky (Kovetz Halachot Shabbat v. 1 p. 779)</ref>
###Rav Schachter permits preparing the wine for havdalah before even saying this phrase, because [[hachana]] isn’t considered a melacha and may be done after [[Shabbat]] before havdalah.<ref>Eretz HaTzvi p. 57</ref>
##It is permissible to use a non-religious Jewish taxi driver on [[Motzei Shabbat]] even though the taxi-driver didn't make havdalah.<ref>Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 12:37 writes that saying "Have a good week" does not fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah. Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 11:34 and 12:38 writes that there's no an issue of asking an non-religious Jew to do work for him after [[Shabbat]] since they aren't going to say Havdalah anyway, the prohibition not to do work before Havdalah doesn't set in. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=308 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] explains this ruling. See also [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735734/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Taking_a_Taxi_in_Israel_on_Motzai_Shabbos Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on yutorah.org].</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/839837/rabbi-shay-schachter/understanding-havdalah-on-motzai-shabbos/ Understanding Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos by Rabbi Shay Schachter]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/813392/rabbi-hershel-schachter/havdalah/ Havdalah] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Prayer]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Havdalah

2024-09-01T04:17:25Z

Gsilver2: /* Eating / Doing Work before making Havdalah */

{{Okay}}
[[Image:Havdalah.jpg|200px|right]]
Havdalah is the ceremony of separation between every [[Shabbat]] and weekday, [[Yom Tov]] and weekday, or [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]]. Havdalah is said after Shabbat and Yom Tov during Shemone Esrei of maariv within the bracha of ata chonen, and when on Yom Tov, within the bracha of ata vchartanu. It is recited another time over a cup of wine.
==Obligation==

#There's a dispute whether the obligation to recite havdalah is of biblical or rabbinic nature. The obligation to recite havdalah over wine is certainly rabbinic.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that the command of "Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]" (Shemot 20:7) - to remember the Shabbat - includes the positive mitzvot of [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] and Havdalah every week, as these mitzvot serve to mark the beginning and end of shabbat and distinguish it from the rest of the week. Other Rishonim agree with Rambam, including Ravi’ah [[Brachot]] 3:1, Ritvah as quoted by the Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 55, and Sefer Hachinuch Mitvah 31. However, Tosfot (Tosfot Nazir 4a s.v. My Hee in name of Rabbenu Tam) and the Rosh (Sh"t 11:3) hold that only kiddush is deorayta, but havdalah is drabbanan. Mishna Brurah 296:1 quotes both opinions and adds that if one said havdalah in [[Tefillah]], then the havdalah on the wine is certainly drabbanan.</ref>
#Even though one says havdalah during davening at maariv (ata chonantanu), one must still recite havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>The gemara brachot 33a states that one who says havdalah during davening (as one is supposed to do), must still say havdalah over a cup of wine as well (המבדיל בתפילה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס). This is codified by Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:6, and Shulchan Aruch 294:1.</ref>

===Havdalah for Yom Tov===

#After [[Yom Tov]], which is followed by a regular weekday or a day of [[Chol HaMoed]], one should say Havdalah. However, if a [[Yom Tov]] is followed by a [[Shabbat]], there is no Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Chullin 26b, Gemara [[Shabbat]] 114b, Rambam [[Shabbat]] 5:21 and 29:18, Shulchan Aruch 491:1</ref>
#Havdalah at the end of [[Yom Tov]] only consists of the bracha of hamavdil, and there is no bracha of [[besamim]] or ner.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:1, Mishna Brurah 491:1</ref>

===When Motzei Shabbat is a Yom Tov===

#If motzei shabbat is yom tov, one may use the Yom Tov candles for havdalah.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6)</ref>
#It is preferable not to hold the two candles together.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6) based on Biur Halacha 514:2 s.v. veyechabeh. Yom Tov Sheni Khilchato ch. 1 fnt. 67 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted from Rav Efraim Greenblatt) as explaining that although generally we prefer to use a torch with two or more wicks for havdalah, on Yom Tov we avoid this. The reason is that on yom tov holding two candles together is likely going to come to an issue of extinguishing one of the candles more quickly. Even if they are touching it is permitted to detach them. Yet he also cites Rabbi Eider (Halachos of Shabbos 266 fnt. 34) who in the name of Rav Moshe permits putting them together. He concludes with a citation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 669 and YD 1 that even on a regular motzei Shabbat two candles next to one another is sufficient, yet we don't generally follow that opinion (Magen Avraham 298:4).</ref>

=== Who is Obligated? ===

==== Women ====
#There is a dispute as to whether women are obligated in havdalah.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that havdalah is a positive biblical mitzvah, just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]]. [[Maggid]] Mishna (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) understands from the Rambam that women are obligated in havdalah just like they are obligated in [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (since we compare "zachor" to "shamor"). [[Maggid]] Mishna suggests that even according to those who argue on the Rambam and hold that havdalah is only drabanan, women are still obligated, since presumably the rabbis instituted havdalah to be just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון). Beit Yosef cites from Rabbenu Yonah who agrees that women are obligated in havdala just like kiddush.

*However, Beit Yosef 296 cites from the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Havdalah 18) that women shouldn't make havdalah for themselves since perhaps they aren't obligated and it would be a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Brurah 296:34 explains that the reason why women wouldn't be obligated is if we view havdalah as a regular positive time-bound mitzvah, from which women are exempt. Even though havdala is connected to shabbat, since its actual performance takes place after shabbat, it is not viewed as fundamentally a "shabbat mitzvah" and hence not included in the hekesh of "zachor v'shamor". Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 296:8 rules as Stam (anonymous opinion) that women are obligated in Havdalah.</ref>
##According to Sephardim women may make havdalah for themselves.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27. </ref>
##Some Ashkenazim say that women should not recite [[havadalah]] for themselves, while others say that they may.<ref>The Rama 296:8 states that women shouldn't recite Havdalah for themselves, in order to be chosheish for the shita that perhaps they are not obligated in havdalah, and so saying it would constitute a bracha l'vatala. However, this is very difficult to understand. We know that in general the Ashkenazi shita is that women are allowed to make brachot on mitzvot in which they are not obligated (such as lulav or shofar), so why should havdalah be any different? Indeed, the Bach thinks this question is so strong that he rejects the Rama and concludes that women may recite havdalah lechatchila. </ref> Many say that preferably a woman should hear havdalah from a man to avoid questions of bracha l'vatala, but if she cannot find someone from whom to hear havdalah, then she should recite it for herself.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 agrees to the Bach. Mishna Brurah 296:35 concludes that a woman should not recite Havdalah for herself unless she can't find someone to hear Havdalah from. In 296:36 he writes that certainly a woman should recite it for herself if she can't find someone else to recite for her, or the only person available to say it for her already fulfilled his obligation (since for him to repeat havdalah for her would constitute a bracha l'vatala if she is, in fact, not obligated). See [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/740210/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Havdalah_for_Women audio shiur] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.</ref>
###When a women makes a havdala, she should certainly recite the brachot of hagefen and besamim.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 explains that since these two brachot are made over receiving enjoyment from something (ברכת הנהנין), and are not brachot for the mitzvah of havdala (ברכת המצוה), they may certainly be made by anyone. Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) cites this Magen Avraham approvingly.</ref>
###Most say that a woman can even recite the beracha on the fire.<ref>Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) discusses whether according to the opinion that women are obligated in havdalah, would they also be obligated in the bracha on the ner. Perhaps since this bracha was really established by chazal to commemorate the fact that fire was created on motzei shabbat, and is thus not intrinsically connected to havdalah (but is rather just said along with havdalah over the cup of wine), it is like any other positive time-bound mitzvah in which women are exempt. One proof that the bracha on the ner isn't really connected to havdalah inherently is the fact that if one doesn't have a fire one is not obligated to go find one, but can just say havdalah on the cup of wine without it (Shulchan Aruch 298:1). Another proof is that one may say the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat outside the context of havdala, whenever one finds a fire. He concludes that they probably are not obligated in the bracha of ner even if they are obligated in havdalah.

*Even though they are not obligated in the bracha of ner, and even though it is a birchat hamitzvah and not a birchat hanehenin, nonetheless one would think that it should be like any other bracha on a mitzvah, which ashkenazim hold that women may make. Indeed, Sh"t Iggerot Moshe CM 2:47:2, Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 14:43, Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27, all pasken this way. See also Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 296 footnote 34), which cites Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievskt, and the Shoneh Halachot as agreeing. </ref> Others disagree.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 58:16 </ref>

==== Children ====
#Once a child has reached the age of [[Chinuch]] (5 or 6), the parents should train him in hearing havdalah.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Dinei [[Chinuch]] Katan pg. 177 </ref>

==Havdalah in Tefilah==

#See the [[Atta Chonantanu]] page.
#If [[Motzei Shabbat]] is a [[Yom Tov]], in middle of Atta Bechartanu, one should insert VeTodiyanu in place of [[Atta Chonantanu]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:2, Mishna Brurah 491:4. see [[Atta_Chonantanu#VeTodienu | Vetodienu]] </ref>

==Havdalah in Shul==

#The chazan recites havdalah in shul on behalf of those who have no wine or who will not recite havdalah for themselves at home.<ref>Tur 295, Shulchan Aruch 295:1.</ref>
##Whoever wishes can listen to the chazan's havdalah in shul and fulfill his obligation, even though he is not holding a cup of wine.
###It is a widespread minhag in our times for the chazan to recite havdalah in shul, and there is no need to protest the custom. It should be made clear to the congregation, however, that everyone must recite Havdalah at home on behalf of his family members who have not heard it in the synagogue, even though he himself did hear it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 1 </ref>
##If one plans on saying havdalah at home for his family, then he should not have kavana to fulfill his obligation with the chazan.<ref>Mishna Brurah 295:6 explains that one who does have wine should not fulfill his obligation with the chazan, but rather should wait until he gets home, such that he will be able to say havdalah for his wife and kids. He refers one to the Shulchan Aruch 296:7, who writes that if one doesn't have kavana to be yotzeh havdalah in shul, then they aren't yotzeh and should say it at home. Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes that it's proper for every person to make havdalah at home for their family.

*Does one have to actively have kavana to NOT be yotzeh in shul, or does it suffice to simply not have active kavana to BE yotzeh? The Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes in the name of the Levush that nowadays since the common practice is that people recite havdalah again when they get home to their family, the default is that people do not have kavana to be yotzeh in shul. Therefore, one does not need to actively think to themselves during the chazan's recital of havdalah that they don't want to be yotzeh. Similarly, one who does want to be yotzeh with the chazan's havdalah, has to actively have in mind that they are fulfilling their obligation with his recital.

*If the husband does have kavana to fulfill his obligation in shul, then he may not recite havdalah for his wife and kids under the age of chinuch at home, since this might constitute a bracha l'vatala (see Mishna Brurah 296:36). In such a case, the wife, should say havdalah for herself. See above section on Women and Havdalah. </ref>
#The opinion of the Geonim is that whoever recites [[Kiddush]] or Havdalah must drink at least melo lugmav of the wine, and if he does not, then he has not fulfilled his obligation. A person should be strict for this opinion.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 271:13 paskens that one needs to drink a m'lo lugmav of the cup of kiddush, which he thinks is the majority of a reviit. The Mishna Brurah 296:9 cites from the Magen Avraham that the same applies to havdalah as well. </ref>
##Therefore the person who is chosen to recite Havdalah in the synagogue must be someone who will be able to drink melo lugmav. If the only person capable of reciting Havdalah is someone who cannot drink that much wine, then he should recite Havdalah, taste a sip of the wine, and then give it to another person who can drink melo lugmav. He should inform that person beforehand that he should have in mind when listening to the blessing of boreh peri hagefen that he will drink from the cup afterward.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 3 </ref>
#If someone is not sure whether or not he will have wine available at home for havdalah, he should listen to the chazan recite havdalah in shul, but stipulate in his mind that he wishes to fulfill his obligation only if he has no wine at home. Then, if he finds that there is wine available at home, he may recite havdalah for himself in accordance with the condition he made.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 4 </ref>

==Havdalah on a Cup of Wine==

=== The Order of Havdalah ===
#The order of the [[Brachot]] of Havdalah is Yayin (Hagefen), [[Besamim]], Ner (Meorei HaEsh), Havdalah (Hamavdil).<ref>The Mishna Brachot 51b cites a debate between beit shamai and beit hillel with respect to the proper order of the four brachot associated with havdalah (hagafen on the wine, besamim on the incense, me'orei ha'eish on the fire, and havdalah itself). The gemara 52a cites a beraita in which Rebbe Yehudah explains the position of beit hillel as follows: yayin, besamim, ner, havdalah. The gemara explains that the reason why havdalah comes last is because we want to delay the leaving of shabbat as much as possible. Shulchan Aruch 296:1 paskens like this. </ref>
#The custom is to add several pesukim prior to Havdalah for a good sign. For the full Ashkenazic text see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.aish.com%2Fmisc%2Fhavdallah.pdf here]. For the full Sephardic text see [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/zmirot/motsaey-2.htm here].<ref>*The Ashkenazic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי לי לישועה: ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה: ליהוה הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה: יהוה צבאות עמנו משגב לנו אלהי יעקב סלה: יהוה צבאות אשרי אדם בטח בך: יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר, כן תהיה לנו: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם יהוה אקרא:
*The source for the Ashkenazic text is the following: the Rama 296:1 writes that before the Bracha of Havdalah one should say Yishaya 12:2-3, Ester 8:16, Tehillim 116:13. The Aruch HaShulchan 296:8 adds 4 more pesukim after the ones in Yishaya from Tehillim 3:9, 46:8, 84:13, and 20:10. He also adds that after Ester 8:16 one should say 'כן תהיה לנו'.
*The Sephardic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה' אקרא: אנא ה' הושיעה נא אנא ה' הצליחה נא: הצליחנו הצליח דרכינו הצליח לימודינו וכו' ושלח ברכה רוחה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידינו כדכתיב ישא ברכה מאת ה' וצדקה מאלהי ישענו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששק ויקר: וכתיב ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו, כן יהיה עמנו תמיד: ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', כן נמצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלוקים ואדם: אלהא דמאיר עננו: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום:
*The source for the Sephardic text is the following: Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 449-50) writes that the Sephardic minhag is to say the following order before Havdalah: Tehillim 116:13, 118:25, a [[prayer]] beginning with הצליחנו and ending with a Tehillim 24:5, Ester 8:16, Shmuel 1:18:14, Beresheet 6:8, a [[prayer]] beginning with אלהא דמאיר, and Devarim 4:4.</ref>
#If the cup of havdalah falls and spills out completely they should get a new cup of wine and recite a new hagefen. If they already got involved in another activity (hesech hadaat) they need to recite havdalah again.<ref>Piskei Teshuvot 296:11</ref>

=== Wine vs Other Beverages ===
#If one has wine, wine has precedence over any other drink.<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:8, citing the Ohr Zaruah.</ref>
##Red wine is preferable, but white wine is permissible if only white wine is available.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 82 </ref>
##One may use grape juice for havdalah.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 408 writes that grape juice is practically like wine and is thus more preferable than chamar medina; Chazon Ovadia v. 1 p. 99 writes that grape juice is fit for kiddush and havdalah based on the Gemara Bava Batra 97a. He ends that even though it is pasteurized it is still like wine for all intents and purposes since it tastes like non-fermented wine (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 272:3). This is also in Yalkut Yosef 202 fnt. 8. Listen to [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 36)] who seems to contradict this as he says that grape juice is unfit for havdalah.</ref>
##One may not use bread for havdalah, even though one may use it for kiddush Friday night.<ref>Tur 296 citing Rav Amram Gaon. Beit Yosef explains that the Friday night kiddush is connected to the meal and so it's reasonable that bread would be a valid substitute for kiddush. But havdalah on motzei shabbat is not connected to any seudah and therefore one may not make havdalah on bread. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 296:2. </ref>
#However, if one prefers chamar medina (see below section), then they may make havdalah on it, even if they have wine available.<ref>The Rama 296:2 writes that the minhag is to make havdalah on motzei pesach on beer since at that point it will have been over a week since drinking beer, so people are very excited about drinking it (it's more חביב - precious). The Biur Halacha (296:2 s.v. im hu chamar medina) learns from this Rama that any time one prefers chamar medina to wine, then they may make havdalah on it. He explains that when it comes to kiddush, there is a debate in the rishonim whether one can fulfill their obligation with chamar medina, and so we try to avoid it. However, everyone agrees that one can fulfill their obligation of havdalah with chamar medina, and so we are less hesitant to do so. </ref>

==== What if There's no Wine / Grape Juice? ====
#If there is no wine or grape juice available, then one can use chamar medina for havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 296:2</ref> What is chamar medina?{{Definition of Chamar Medina}}
===How Much to Drink===

# The one reciting havdalah should ideally drink a reviyit, in order to be able to recite a bracha achrona. After the fact, if they drank a melo lugmav, it is sufficient (and they just shouldn't make a bracha achrona). If someone drank only a tiny sip of the wine and not a melo lugmav, some say that they did not fulfill their obligation even after the fact,<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:9, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 60:36</ref> while others hold that one fulfilled the mitzvah but just not in the ideal way.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 190:4, Pri Megadim EA 271:24, Aruch Hashulchan 296:15, Kaf Hachaim 296:16, Or Letzion 2:20:7, Tzitz Eliezer 19:21:1, Yachava Daat 3:40, Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat 1-4, 5773 edition, 296:27), Piskei Teshuvot 296:11, and Rav Ben Tzion Felman in Moriya (257-259 p. 114) quoting Rav Aryeh Leib Shteinmann. Avnei Darech 9:40 rules that after the fact, if the one who made havdalah didn't drink the wine, those who heard it from him still fulfill their mitzvah, but if they want to be machmir to hear havdalah again from someone else then they can. He cites Migdanot Eliyahu 2:24 quoted Rashi, Raavan, and Baal Haitur that melo lugmav isn't maakev for havdalah. He quotes several other sources to this effect: Kaf Hachaim 296:15, Me'at Mayim 73, and Pekudat Eliezer 271 s.v. vtzarich li iyun.</ref>
# Those listening to the havdalah initially should not talk until after the one who recited havdalah drank melo lugmav. After the fact, if they talked after he drank a sip they fulfilled their obligation.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:257</ref>

=== Besamim ===
#What if there are no besamim?
##If someone doesn't have fragrant spices for besamim, one doesn't have to go out of his way to get them, and can recite havdalah without them.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:1, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 130. The gemara brachot 53b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of rav that one need not seek out a fire to make a bracha on motzei shabbat, in the way in which we typically try to seek out mitzvot. The Rosh 8:3 explains that this is because the bracha on fire is just a remembrance that fire was first created on motzei shabbat. He then says that all the more so one should not have to seek out besamim, since the whole point of besamim is just to restore the person's soul on motzei shabbat (להשבת נפשו). </ref>
##If one made havdalah without besamim, but gets them later on Motzei Shabbat, he can recite the bracha then.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:5 rules that the mitzvah of besamim is only on Motzei Shabbat. The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 adds that if it was omitted in havdalah it can be recited afterwards until Olot Hashachar based on the Eshel Avraham.</ref>
#What exactly is the nusach of the bracha?
##The Ashkenaz minhag is to make Boreh Minei Besamim (בורא מיני בשמים) - the generic bracha for fragrance - irrespective of what is actually being used for besamim at Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1 explains that we always just use this bracha since it can in theory be said on any spice, and we don't want the masses getting confused amongst all the possible variations of brachot on smells.</ref>
##According to Sephardim, one should make the appropriate bracha for that type of besamim.
###E.g. If it's a tree, then "boreh atzei besamim", and if it's a grass then "boreh isvei besamim".<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19) </ref>
#What type of spices should be used?
##There is a Sephardic practice to use hadasim when possible.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:4. Mishna Brurah 297:8 explains that this is referring to the hadas from the lulav that was used on sukkot, the idea being that since it was already used for a mitzvah, it's fitting to use it for other mitzvot as well. Rama notes that many times the hadas is too dried out to really smell like anything, and therefore it's best to just add it to a mix of other spices, but not to use the hadas exclusively.</ref>
##As mentioned above, Ashkenazim always make the bracha of "minei besamim", and so it is proper to use something which actually has that bracha, such as cloves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19), The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
##It is a nice thing to have a designated spice box of besamim for havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:10 cites from the Tur that Rabbeinu Efraim used to have a glass box filled with spices that he designated for this purpose. Even though one can in theory use any spice around the house for havdalah, the Mishna Brurah concludes that it's a mitzvah min hamuvchar (ideal practice) to designate spices for the mitzvah, and that this is indeed the common minhag in klal yisroel. </ref>
# Someone who can't smell should not recite the bracha on besamim, unless he is reciting havdalah for someone else who can smell.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:5, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
# If one isn't sure if the spice has a smell, one may smell it in advance without a bracha.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 132 citing Kaf Hachaim 216:3. He adds that this was the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein to smell the besamim before the havdalah to check if it smelled. </ref>
## If the spice container is old and in fact doesn't smell and one only realizes after the bracha, the bracha he recited is invalid and the hagefen was also interrupted. Therefore, he should recite another hagefen and a new besamim on another spice if it is available.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 133 </ref>

=== Fire ===
# What if one doesn't have fire?
## One need not go out of their way to try to find fire to say the bracha of "boreh me'orei ha'eish" on it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:1. Mishna Brurah 298:1 explains that the reason we say a bracha on fire on motzei shabbat is because the gemara in pesachim 54b relates that Hashem first showed Adam Harishon how to make fire on motzei shabbat, and so we make a bracha on it to commemorate this event. Since the only reason for this bracha is to commemorate this event, it is not critical to make it, and thus one need not burden themselves seeking out a fire on motzei shabbat. </ref>
## If one made havdala without fire, but gets fire later on motzei shabbat, he should make the bracha then.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:3</ref>
# Turning off the (electric) lights
##A person needs to be able to benefit from the fire in order to recite the bracha over it.<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one can't make the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat until he benefits from it. The gemara 53b cites a debate whether this is meant to be literal or not. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that one need not actually be close enough to the fire to benefit, but rather that it just needs to be a fire big enough that one could in theory benefit if he was close enough. Rava argues that the mishna is literal, and chizkiya explains that this means that one needs to be close enough to be able to distinguish between two different types of coins. The Beit Yosef cites a machloket rishonim regarding how to pasken. The Rashba paskens like rav yehudah (don't need to be close to the fire), but the Rif and Rosh just cite the mishna with no clarification, implying that it should be read literally like rava (need to be close enough to benefit). The Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:25 explicitly paskens like rava as explained by chizkiyah. The Maggid Mishna clarifies that even rava doesn't actually require one to benefit from the light. One need not literally use it to distinguish between two coins. Rather, one needs to be close enough such that if he had two coins in his hand, he could distinguish between them.</ref> Therefore, some turn off the electric lights when making Havdalah.<ref>Rivevot Efraim 2:115:32 citing Teshuvot Vehanhagot 6:90.</ref>
##However, others hold that the strict halacha doesn't require turning off the lights.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 2 p. 439, Yalkut Yosef 298:10 Shabbat v. 1 p. 477. See Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 12, who cites that the practice of the Chazon Ish was to leave the electric lights on. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 49)] explains that one need not turn off the electric lights, since all that is required is that one be close enough to the fire to be able (in theory) to benefit from the light and see the difference between different coins (but one need not actually benefit from the fire, and thus the electric lights can remain on).</ref>
#Where to look?
##The minhag is to look at one's fingernails during the havdalah in order to indicate that one is getting benefit from the candle, to see the difference between one's nails and flesh.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 298:3, Zohar 2:208b:2</ref>
##One needs to stand close enough to the fire such that he could in theory benefit from it.
###Therefore, if one is in a big room, one should try to get closer to the fire.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:13.</ref>
###If one can't get close, then they should have in mind not to be yotzeh the bracha on fire, and then get closer after havdala and make the bracha on the fire themselves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:13 (at the end)</ref>
#What kind of fire?
##Two wicks:
###It is preferable that one make the bracha on an "avuka" (lit: torch).<ref>The gemara pesachim 103b states that it is ideal to use an "avuka" for havdala. Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:26 cites this. Maggid Mishna explains that an "avuka" is a fire that has a lot of wood and a lot of flames. Shulchan Aruch 298:2 paskens this. Perhaps the idea is that a more substantive fire is more impressive and thus helps one better appreciate the chesed that Hashem did by showing Adam Harishon how to make fire. </ref>
###A candle that has two wicks (or two candles that one holds together such that their flames coalesce) is halachically equivalent to an avuka.<ref>Rama 298:2. Mishna Brurah 298:8 adds that if one takes two separate candles but just holds them together such that their flames touch, this is also considered an avuka.</ref>
##Electric light:
###Some poskim allow one to use an electric light in place of a havdala candle in a time of need.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6, Az Nidberu 8:2, Rivevot Ephraim 3:599. see also Mishpitei Uziel OC 1:9 </ref>
####In fact, it is reported that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky would always use an electric bulb for havdala in order to demonstrate how strongly he felt that electricity is to be treated exactly like fire from the perspective of halacha.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6. Sh"t Nachalat Shimon 15 says this was the practice of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik </ref>
####Even among the authorities who permit the use of electric lights if need be, many disqualify the use of fluorescent bulbs, as they work differently than standard light bulbs.<ref>Hachashmal L’or Hahalacha 3:88 </ref>
###Nevertheless, there are those authorities who discourage the use of an electric light for havdala.<ref>Har Tzvi 2:114, Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:39, Maharshag 2:107, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Raphael Baruch Toledano pg. 323. One argument they make is that the blessing recited upon the havdalah candle includes the word "fire", which seems to imply the need for actual fire, not merely light. </ref>
##Fire that "rested":
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that was lit on shabbat by a Jew or nonJew.<ref>The gemara brachot 52b cites a beraita that one may only make havdala on a flame which was "shavat" (lit: rested). Rashi explains that this means that the flame can't have been lit in a prohibited manner. Certainly then, if a Jew lights the flame on shabbat, one may not use it for havdala. However, one might have thought that if a nonJew lights it on shabbat, it would be allowed, since nonJews aren't supposed to keep shabbat! Nonetheless, the Tur explains that even if it was lit by a nonJew, it's considered to not be "shavat", since it was prohibited for a Jew to light it at that time. Shulchan Aruch 298:5 paskens this way. Thus the flame has to have either been lit since before shabbat, lit after shabbat ended, or lit on shabbat for the purpose of pikuach nefesh. </ref>
###The flame need not have been lit on erev shabbat in order to make havdala on it (in contrast to Yom Kippur, which does have this extra requirement).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:8. Mishna Brurah 298:26 explains that on motzei shabbat we make a bracha on fire to commemorate its inception when Hashem showed Adam Harishon how to make it (see gemara pesachim 54a). Therefore, a fire created on motzei shabbat is perfectly suitable for the job. However, on motzei yom kippur we make a bracha on fire to demonstrate how yom kippur is different from other yomim tovim (in which one may use fire to cook), and thus it's specifically through a fire that was around during yom kippur (but just not in use) that this can be accomplished.</ref>
##Fire made for the purpose of light:
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that wasn't lit for the purpose of giving light<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one may not make the bracha on a fire that was lit to give honor to a deceased individual. The gemara 53a explains that this is a problem since one may only make a bracha on a fire that was lit for the purpose of giving light. </ref> (e.g. it was lit to give honor to an important person or place<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:11 discusses making the bracha on the flame in the shul. The determining factor is whether this light is merely for honor (either of the shul itself or of some important person who davens therein), or for light. The Mishna Brurah 298:30 states from the Rosh that one may not make the bracha on the ner tamid, since this is clearly just for the honor of the shul, as indicated by the fact that it is lit during the day as well. </ref>, to cook with<ref>See Shulchan Aruch 298:10 based on gemara brachot 53a.</ref>, for warmth, etc.).
##Fire behind glass
###There is a debate whether one may make the bracha on a fire that one sees behind glass, and so ideally one should be able to actually see the flames.<ref>The Beit Yosef cites a yerushalmi that one has to both be able to see the flame (רואה את השלהבת) and also have the ability to benefit from the flame (משתמש לאורה) in order to make the bracha of "me'orei ha'eish" on it. The yerushalmi gives a few examples which wouldn't satisfy these requirements, and one such an example is a fire inside of an "aspaklarya" (lit: looking glass of some sort). The Shulchan Aruch 298:15 paskens this way. However, the Magen Avraham 298:20 cites from the Rashba that if the fire is behind glass, this is still ok, since the fire is visible behind the glass and one can still benefit from its light. The Beit Yosef himself cites this Rashba, but is bothered how he seemingly is paskening against the aforementioned yerushalmi. The Magen Avraham defends the Rashba by suggesting that the yerushalmi was never saying that one can't use an aspaklarya, but the Biur Halacha 298:15 finds this reading of the yerushalmi difficult. Instead, he suggests that the Rashba thinks that the bavli argues on the yerushalmi, and he simply paskens like the Bavli. However, he conludes (see also Mishna Brurah 298:37) that since many poskim are machmir like the Shulchan Aruch, one should not be lenient in this matter, and should make sure the flame is visible (not behind glass) when making the bracha. </ref>
###One need not remove their eyeglasses when making the bracha.<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 30 cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen and the Ketzos Hashulchan who are bothered why the minhag is that people don't remove their glasses, given that the conclusion of the Mishna Brurah (see previous note) was to be machmir (like the Shulchan Aruch against the Rashba) not to have the flame behind glass. They cite from Rav Nissim Karelitz that since the eyeglasses are batel to the person wearing them, they aren't considered to be covering up the flame, and so we look at the flame as if it is still fully exposed (in contrast to when the flame itself is behind glass). </ref>

==Timing==

=== Saying Havdalah Early ===
#If one is has an extreme need, such as a need to travel to the end of the [[Techum]] for the purpose of performing a mitzvah immediately after [[Shabbat]], one may pray [[Arvit]] starting from Plag [[Mincha]] (ten and three quarter hours into the day). In such a case one may also say havdalah early, but one may not say the bracha on the candle (meorei ha'eish). Even in such a case, it is certainly forbidden to do melacha (activity which is forbidden on [[Shabbat]]) until [[Tzet HaKochavim]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 293:3 </ref>

=== Until When Can One Say Havdalah? ===
#If one forgot to say havdalah on Motzei Shabbat, one can say it until Tuesday.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 299:6. The Shulchan Aruch cites another opinion that one may only say havdala up until Sunday evening, this is only brought as a "yesh omrim", and the Rama explicitly paskens leniently like the stam. Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer 6:48:13) was concerned about safek brachot and wrote that one couldn't say havdala after Sunday, but he later retracted (Yabia Omer 7:47) and followed Shulchan Aruch, since the machloket is about the mitzvah and not the bracha. Yalkut Yosef 299:7 writes that one who recites the bracha past Sunday isn't scorned. However, in a shiur given on [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Motzei Shabbat (Matot Masei 5778 min 44-47)], he seemed to support the last ruling of Rav Ovadia.</ref>

==Standing vs Sitting for Havdalah==

#The Sephardic minhag is to sit for havdalah. However, the Ashkenazic minhag is to stand.<ref>The mishna brachot 42a says that only when everyone is "reclining" is one person able to make a bracha on the bread to exempt the others who are eating. Rashi explains that reclining lends the meal a permanence (kvi'ut). Tosfot brachot 43a is bothered how the minhag is to stand during [[Havadalah]], as this seemingly should prevent one person from being motzi others, as there is no kvi'ut (nowadays sitting accomplishes kvi'ut since we don't recline while eating). Tosfot suggests that perhaps since havdala is a mitzvah, everyone is "kove'ah" themselves to listen to the mitzvah, and therefore they can also be yotzeh in the bracha of hagafen on the wine. However, tosfot concludes that ideally one should sit for havdala to avoid the issue. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch 296:6 rules that one should sit during Havdalah. However, Rama 296:6 and the Gra (Maaseh Rav pg 103, #150) write that the Ashkenazic practice is to stand for Havdalah. Mishna Brurah 296:27 explains that the reason for the Ashkenazic minhag is to escort the [[Shabbat]] queen out, and escorting must be done standing. He adds that one can fulfill the obligation of others even when standing because everyone is assembled expressed for that purpose and has kavana to fulfill their obligation (like tosfot said). Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuva Siman 3 quoted in back of Radiance of [[Shabbos]]) writes that his personal minhag was to sit like his father's minhag, but because of the rishonim who hold that one may stand, one should not change one's minhag. The Dirshu Mishna Brurah 296 footnote 24 cites that the Chafetz Chaim used to stand for havdala. </ref>

==Eating / Doing Work Before Havdalah==

#Eating
## One may not eat until one makes havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:1</ref>
## This prohibition begins starting at sunset on Saturday, as this begins the period of bein hashmashot according to many opinions, and so one is now safek obligated in havdala.<ref>Magen Avraham 299:1, Mishna Brurah 299:1 unlike Taz 299:1 who allows eating during ben hashemashot.</ref>
## One may still drink water.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:1</ref>
## One may continue eating if they began their meal before sunset.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:1. This certainly is true if one washed and made motzi before sunset. If one was eating fruits only (or other non-mezonos foods), then they would have to stop once sunset comes (even if this was their seudat shlishit). See Dirshu Mishna Brurah 299 footnote 14 citing many poskim. If one was eating mezonos foods to fulfill seudat shlishit, then there is a debate whether one would have to stop at sunset or not. The Aruch Hashulchan 299:5 says that you would have to stop eating at sunset, but the Ohr Letzion (cited in aforementioned dirshi footnote) says that one may keep eating since this is kavu'a given that it is a substantive food and one is eating it for seudat shlishit.</ref>
## If one made a mistake and ate before havdala, he can still make havdala.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:5</ref>
#Doing Work
##Before one says havdalah, one may not do any melacha.<ref name=":0">Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:10 based on gemara shabbat 150b. </ref>
##If one made havdalah in [[Tefillah]] (ata chonantanu), one may do melacha.<ref name=":0" /> However, one still may not eat until making havdala on a cup of wine.<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:35</ref>
##If one needs to do melacha before saying havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one should say "Hamavdil bein kodesh lechol" (which is not a bracha) and then do melacha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 299:10 </ref> Some say that the correct girsa is "Baruch hamavdil etc.".<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:34 citing the Levush</ref>
###One shouldn't say "Baruch hamavdil ben kodesh lechol" in a bathroom.<ref>Avnei Yishpeh 6:10:1 writes that one shouldn't say hamavdil ben kodesh lechol in a bathroom since it is doing a mitzvah and similar to divrei kedusha. Dor Hamelaktim v. 2 p. 1072 quotes this from Rav Chaim Kanievsky as well. However, it quotes Minchat Shabbat who permits it.</ref>
###If one needs to, one should say "Hamavdil ben kodesh lchol" without the word baruch.<ref>Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky (Kovetz Halachot Shabbat v. 1 p. 779)</ref>
###Rav Schachter permits preparing the wine for havdala before even saying this phrase, because [[hachana]] isn’t considered a melacha and may be done after [[Shabbat]] before havdalah.<ref>Eretz HaTzvi p. 57</ref>
##It is permissible to use a non-religious Jewish taxi driver on [[Motzei Shabbat]] even though the taxi-driver didn't make havdalah.<ref>Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 12:37 writes that saying "Have a good week" does not fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah. Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 11:34 and 12:38 writes that there's no an issue of asking an non-religious Jew to do work for him after [[Shabbat]] since they aren't going to say Havdalah anyway, the prohibition not to do work before Havdalah doesn't set in. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=308 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] explains this ruling. See also [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735734/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Taking_a_Taxi_in_Israel_on_Motzai_Shabbos Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on yutorah.org].</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/839837/rabbi-shay-schachter/understanding-havdalah-on-motzai-shabbos/ Understanding Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos by Rabbi Shay Schachter]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/813392/rabbi-hershel-schachter/havdalah/ Havdalah] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Prayer]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Havdalah

2024-09-01T03:55:44Z

Gsilver2: /* Saying Havdalah Early */

{{Okay}}
[[Image:Havdalah.jpg|200px|right]]
Havdalah is the ceremony of separation between every [[Shabbat]] and weekday, [[Yom Tov]] and weekday, or [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]]. Havdalah is said after Shabbat and Yom Tov during Shemone Esrei of maariv within the bracha of ata chonen, and when on Yom Tov, within the bracha of ata vchartanu. It is recited another time over a cup of wine.
==Obligation==

#There's a dispute whether the obligation to recite havdalah is of biblical or rabbinic nature. The obligation to recite havdalah over wine is certainly rabbinic.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that the command of "Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]" (Shemot 20:7) - to remember the Shabbat - includes the positive mitzvot of [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] and Havdalah every week, as these mitzvot serve to mark the beginning and end of shabbat and distinguish it from the rest of the week. Other Rishonim agree with Rambam, including Ravi’ah [[Brachot]] 3:1, Ritvah as quoted by the Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 55, and Sefer Hachinuch Mitvah 31. However, Tosfot (Tosfot Nazir 4a s.v. My Hee in name of Rabbenu Tam) and the Rosh (Sh"t 11:3) hold that only kiddush is deorayta, but havdalah is drabbanan. Mishna Brurah 296:1 quotes both opinions and adds that if one said havdalah in [[Tefillah]], then the havdalah on the wine is certainly drabbanan.</ref>
#Even though one says havdalah during davening at maariv (ata chonantanu), one must still recite havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>The gemara brachot 33a states that one who says havdalah during davening (as one is supposed to do), must still say havdalah over a cup of wine as well (המבדיל בתפילה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס). This is codified by Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:6, and Shulchan Aruch 294:1.</ref>

===Havdalah for Yom Tov===

#After [[Yom Tov]], which is followed by a regular weekday or a day of [[Chol HaMoed]], one should say Havdalah. However, if a [[Yom Tov]] is followed by a [[Shabbat]], there is no Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Chullin 26b, Gemara [[Shabbat]] 114b, Rambam [[Shabbat]] 5:21 and 29:18, Shulchan Aruch 491:1</ref>
#Havdalah at the end of [[Yom Tov]] only consists of the bracha of hamavdil, and there is no bracha of [[besamim]] or ner.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:1, Mishna Brurah 491:1</ref>

===When Motzei Shabbat is a Yom Tov===

#If motzei shabbat is yom tov, one may use the Yom Tov candles for havdalah.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6)</ref>
#It is preferable not to hold the two candles together.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6) based on Biur Halacha 514:2 s.v. veyechabeh. Yom Tov Sheni Khilchato ch. 1 fnt. 67 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted from Rav Efraim Greenblatt) as explaining that although generally we prefer to use a torch with two or more wicks for havdalah, on Yom Tov we avoid this. The reason is that on yom tov holding two candles together is likely going to come to an issue of extinguishing one of the candles more quickly. Even if they are touching it is permitted to detach them. Yet he also cites Rabbi Eider (Halachos of Shabbos 266 fnt. 34) who in the name of Rav Moshe permits putting them together. He concludes with a citation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 669 and YD 1 that even on a regular motzei Shabbat two candles next to one another is sufficient, yet we don't generally follow that opinion (Magen Avraham 298:4).</ref>

=== Who is Obligated? ===

==== Women ====
#There is a dispute as to whether women are obligated in havdalah.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that havdalah is a positive biblical mitzvah, just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]]. [[Maggid]] Mishna (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) understands from the Rambam that women are obligated in havdalah just like they are obligated in [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (since we compare "zachor" to "shamor"). [[Maggid]] Mishna suggests that even according to those who argue on the Rambam and hold that havdalah is only drabanan, women are still obligated, since presumably the rabbis instituted havdalah to be just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון). Beit Yosef cites from Rabbenu Yonah who agrees that women are obligated in havdala just like kiddush.

*However, Beit Yosef 296 cites from the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Havdalah 18) that women shouldn't make havdalah for themselves since perhaps they aren't obligated and it would be a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Brurah 296:34 explains that the reason why women wouldn't be obligated is if we view havdalah as a regular positive time-bound mitzvah, from which women are exempt. Even though havdala is connected to shabbat, since its actual performance takes place after shabbat, it is not viewed as fundamentally a "shabbat mitzvah" and hence not included in the hekesh of "zachor v'shamor". Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 296:8 rules as Stam (anonymous opinion) that women are obligated in Havdalah.</ref>
##According to Sephardim women may make havdalah for themselves.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27. </ref>
##Some Ashkenazim say that women should not recite [[havadalah]] for themselves, while others say that they may.<ref>The Rama 296:8 states that women shouldn't recite Havdalah for themselves, in order to be chosheish for the shita that perhaps they are not obligated in havdalah, and so saying it would constitute a bracha l'vatala. However, this is very difficult to understand. We know that in general the Ashkenazi shita is that women are allowed to make brachot on mitzvot in which they are not obligated (such as lulav or shofar), so why should havdalah be any different? Indeed, the Bach thinks this question is so strong that he rejects the Rama and concludes that women may recite havdalah lechatchila. </ref> Many say that preferably a woman should hear havdalah from a man to avoid questions of bracha l'vatala, but if she cannot find someone from whom to hear havdalah, then she should recite it for herself.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 agrees to the Bach. Mishna Brurah 296:35 concludes that a woman should not recite Havdalah for herself unless she can't find someone to hear Havdalah from. In 296:36 he writes that certainly a woman should recite it for herself if she can't find someone else to recite for her, or the only person available to say it for her already fulfilled his obligation (since for him to repeat havdalah for her would constitute a bracha l'vatala if she is, in fact, not obligated). See [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/740210/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Havdalah_for_Women audio shiur] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.</ref>
###When a women makes a havdala, she should certainly recite the brachot of hagefen and besamim.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 explains that since these two brachot are made over receiving enjoyment from something (ברכת הנהנין), and are not brachot for the mitzvah of havdala (ברכת המצוה), they may certainly be made by anyone. Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) cites this Magen Avraham approvingly.</ref>
###Most say that a woman can even recite the beracha on the fire.<ref>Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) discusses whether according to the opinion that women are obligated in havdalah, would they also be obligated in the bracha on the ner. Perhaps since this bracha was really established by chazal to commemorate the fact that fire was created on motzei shabbat, and is thus not intrinsically connected to havdalah (but is rather just said along with havdalah over the cup of wine), it is like any other positive time-bound mitzvah in which women are exempt. One proof that the bracha on the ner isn't really connected to havdalah inherently is the fact that if one doesn't have a fire one is not obligated to go find one, but can just say havdalah on the cup of wine without it (Shulchan Aruch 298:1). Another proof is that one may say the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat outside the context of havdala, whenever one finds a fire. He concludes that they probably are not obligated in the bracha of ner even if they are obligated in havdalah.

*Even though they are not obligated in the bracha of ner, and even though it is a birchat hamitzvah and not a birchat hanehenin, nonetheless one would think that it should be like any other bracha on a mitzvah, which ashkenazim hold that women may make. Indeed, Sh"t Iggerot Moshe CM 2:47:2, Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 14:43, Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27, all pasken this way. See also Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 296 footnote 34), which cites Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievskt, and the Shoneh Halachot as agreeing. </ref> Others disagree.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 58:16 </ref>

==== Children ====
#Once a child has reached the age of [[Chinuch]] (5 or 6), the parents should train him in hearing havdalah.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Dinei [[Chinuch]] Katan pg. 177 </ref>

==Havdalah in Tefilah==

#See the [[Atta Chonantanu]] page.
#If [[Motzei Shabbat]] is a [[Yom Tov]], in middle of Atta Bechartanu, one should insert VeTodiyanu in place of [[Atta Chonantanu]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:2, Mishna Brurah 491:4. see [[Atta_Chonantanu#VeTodienu | Vetodienu]] </ref>

==Havdalah in Shul==

#The chazan recites havdalah in shul on behalf of those who have no wine or who will not recite havdalah for themselves at home.<ref>Tur 295, Shulchan Aruch 295:1.</ref>
##Whoever wishes can listen to the chazan's havdalah in shul and fulfill his obligation, even though he is not holding a cup of wine.
###It is a widespread minhag in our times for the chazan to recite havdalah in shul, and there is no need to protest the custom. It should be made clear to the congregation, however, that everyone must recite Havdalah at home on behalf of his family members who have not heard it in the synagogue, even though he himself did hear it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 1 </ref>
##If one plans on saying havdalah at home for his family, then he should not have kavana to fulfill his obligation with the chazan.<ref>Mishna Brurah 295:6 explains that one who does have wine should not fulfill his obligation with the chazan, but rather should wait until he gets home, such that he will be able to say havdalah for his wife and kids. He refers one to the Shulchan Aruch 296:7, who writes that if one doesn't have kavana to be yotzeh havdalah in shul, then they aren't yotzeh and should say it at home. Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes that it's proper for every person to make havdalah at home for their family.

*Does one have to actively have kavana to NOT be yotzeh in shul, or does it suffice to simply not have active kavana to BE yotzeh? The Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes in the name of the Levush that nowadays since the common practice is that people recite havdalah again when they get home to their family, the default is that people do not have kavana to be yotzeh in shul. Therefore, one does not need to actively think to themselves during the chazan's recital of havdalah that they don't want to be yotzeh. Similarly, one who does want to be yotzeh with the chazan's havdalah, has to actively have in mind that they are fulfilling their obligation with his recital.

*If the husband does have kavana to fulfill his obligation in shul, then he may not recite havdalah for his wife and kids under the age of chinuch at home, since this might constitute a bracha l'vatala (see Mishna Brurah 296:36). In such a case, the wife, should say havdalah for herself. See above section on Women and Havdalah. </ref>
#The opinion of the Geonim is that whoever recites [[Kiddush]] or Havdalah must drink at least melo lugmav of the wine, and if he does not, then he has not fulfilled his obligation. A person should be strict for this opinion.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 271:13 paskens that one needs to drink a m'lo lugmav of the cup of kiddush, which he thinks is the majority of a reviit. The Mishna Brurah 296:9 cites from the Magen Avraham that the same applies to havdalah as well. </ref>
##Therefore the person who is chosen to recite Havdalah in the synagogue must be someone who will be able to drink melo lugmav. If the only person capable of reciting Havdalah is someone who cannot drink that much wine, then he should recite Havdalah, taste a sip of the wine, and then give it to another person who can drink melo lugmav. He should inform that person beforehand that he should have in mind when listening to the blessing of boreh peri hagefen that he will drink from the cup afterward.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 3 </ref>
#If someone is not sure whether or not he will have wine available at home for havdalah, he should listen to the chazan recite havdalah in shul, but stipulate in his mind that he wishes to fulfill his obligation only if he has no wine at home. Then, if he finds that there is wine available at home, he may recite havdalah for himself in accordance with the condition he made.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 4 </ref>

==Havdalah on a Cup of Wine==

=== The Order of Havdalah ===
#The order of the [[Brachot]] of Havdalah is Yayin (Hagefen), [[Besamim]], Ner (Meorei HaEsh), Havdalah (Hamavdil).<ref>The Mishna Brachot 51b cites a debate between beit shamai and beit hillel with respect to the proper order of the four brachot associated with havdalah (hagafen on the wine, besamim on the incense, me'orei ha'eish on the fire, and havdalah itself). The gemara 52a cites a beraita in which Rebbe Yehudah explains the position of beit hillel as follows: yayin, besamim, ner, havdalah. The gemara explains that the reason why havdalah comes last is because we want to delay the leaving of shabbat as much as possible. Shulchan Aruch 296:1 paskens like this. </ref>
#The custom is to add several pesukim prior to Havdalah for a good sign. For the full Ashkenazic text see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.aish.com%2Fmisc%2Fhavdallah.pdf here]. For the full Sephardic text see [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/zmirot/motsaey-2.htm here].<ref>*The Ashkenazic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי לי לישועה: ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה: ליהוה הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה: יהוה צבאות עמנו משגב לנו אלהי יעקב סלה: יהוה צבאות אשרי אדם בטח בך: יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר, כן תהיה לנו: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם יהוה אקרא:
*The source for the Ashkenazic text is the following: the Rama 296:1 writes that before the Bracha of Havdalah one should say Yishaya 12:2-3, Ester 8:16, Tehillim 116:13. The Aruch HaShulchan 296:8 adds 4 more pesukim after the ones in Yishaya from Tehillim 3:9, 46:8, 84:13, and 20:10. He also adds that after Ester 8:16 one should say 'כן תהיה לנו'.
*The Sephardic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה' אקרא: אנא ה' הושיעה נא אנא ה' הצליחה נא: הצליחנו הצליח דרכינו הצליח לימודינו וכו' ושלח ברכה רוחה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידינו כדכתיב ישא ברכה מאת ה' וצדקה מאלהי ישענו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששק ויקר: וכתיב ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו, כן יהיה עמנו תמיד: ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', כן נמצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלוקים ואדם: אלהא דמאיר עננו: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום:
*The source for the Sephardic text is the following: Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 449-50) writes that the Sephardic minhag is to say the following order before Havdalah: Tehillim 116:13, 118:25, a [[prayer]] beginning with הצליחנו and ending with a Tehillim 24:5, Ester 8:16, Shmuel 1:18:14, Beresheet 6:8, a [[prayer]] beginning with אלהא דמאיר, and Devarim 4:4.</ref>
#If the cup of havdalah falls and spills out completely they should get a new cup of wine and recite a new hagefen. If they already got involved in another activity (hesech hadaat) they need to recite havdalah again.<ref>Piskei Teshuvot 296:11</ref>

=== Wine vs Other Beverages ===
#If one has wine, wine has precedence over any other drink.<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:8, citing the Ohr Zaruah.</ref>
##Red wine is preferable, but white wine is permissible if only white wine is available.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 82 </ref>
##One may use grape juice for havdalah.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 408 writes that grape juice is practically like wine and is thus more preferable than chamar medina; Chazon Ovadia v. 1 p. 99 writes that grape juice is fit for kiddush and havdalah based on the Gemara Bava Batra 97a. He ends that even though it is pasteurized it is still like wine for all intents and purposes since it tastes like non-fermented wine (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 272:3). This is also in Yalkut Yosef 202 fnt. 8. Listen to [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 36)] who seems to contradict this as he says that grape juice is unfit for havdalah.</ref>
##One may not use bread for havdalah, even though one may use it for kiddush Friday night.<ref>Tur 296 citing Rav Amram Gaon. Beit Yosef explains that the Friday night kiddush is connected to the meal and so it's reasonable that bread would be a valid substitute for kiddush. But havdalah on motzei shabbat is not connected to any seudah and therefore one may not make havdalah on bread. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 296:2. </ref>
#However, if one prefers chamar medina (see below section), then they may make havdalah on it, even if they have wine available.<ref>The Rama 296:2 writes that the minhag is to make havdalah on motzei pesach on beer since at that point it will have been over a week since drinking beer, so people are very excited about drinking it (it's more חביב - precious). The Biur Halacha (296:2 s.v. im hu chamar medina) learns from this Rama that any time one prefers chamar medina to wine, then they may make havdalah on it. He explains that when it comes to kiddush, there is a debate in the rishonim whether one can fulfill their obligation with chamar medina, and so we try to avoid it. However, everyone agrees that one can fulfill their obligation of havdalah with chamar medina, and so we are less hesitant to do so. </ref>

==== What if There's no Wine / Grape Juice? ====
#If there is no wine or grape juice available, then one can use chamar medina for havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 296:2</ref> What is chamar medina?{{Definition of Chamar Medina}}
===How Much to Drink===

# The one reciting havdalah should ideally drink a reviyit, in order to be able to recite a bracha achrona. After the fact, if they drank a melo lugmav, it is sufficient (and they just shouldn't make a bracha achrona). If someone drank only a tiny sip of the wine and not a melo lugmav, some say that they did not fulfill their obligation even after the fact,<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:9, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 60:36</ref> while others hold that one fulfilled the mitzvah but just not in the ideal way.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 190:4, Pri Megadim EA 271:24, Aruch Hashulchan 296:15, Kaf Hachaim 296:16, Or Letzion 2:20:7, Tzitz Eliezer 19:21:1, Yachava Daat 3:40, Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat 1-4, 5773 edition, 296:27), Piskei Teshuvot 296:11, and Rav Ben Tzion Felman in Moriya (257-259 p. 114) quoting Rav Aryeh Leib Shteinmann. Avnei Darech 9:40 rules that after the fact, if the one who made havdalah didn't drink the wine, those who heard it from him still fulfill their mitzvah, but if they want to be machmir to hear havdalah again from someone else then they can. He cites Migdanot Eliyahu 2:24 quoted Rashi, Raavan, and Baal Haitur that melo lugmav isn't maakev for havdalah. He quotes several other sources to this effect: Kaf Hachaim 296:15, Me'at Mayim 73, and Pekudat Eliezer 271 s.v. vtzarich li iyun.</ref>
# Those listening to the havdalah initially should not talk until after the one who recited havdalah drank melo lugmav. After the fact, if they talked after he drank a sip they fulfilled their obligation.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:257</ref>

=== Besamim ===
#What if there are no besamim?
##If someone doesn't have fragrant spices for besamim, one doesn't have to go out of his way to get them, and can recite havdalah without them.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:1, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 130. The gemara brachot 53b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of rav that one need not seek out a fire to make a bracha on motzei shabbat, in the way in which we typically try to seek out mitzvot. The Rosh 8:3 explains that this is because the bracha on fire is just a remembrance that fire was first created on motzei shabbat. He then says that all the more so one should not have to seek out besamim, since the whole point of besamim is just to restore the person's soul on motzei shabbat (להשבת נפשו). </ref>
##If one made havdalah without besamim, but gets them later on Motzei Shabbat, he can recite the bracha then.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:5 rules that the mitzvah of besamim is only on Motzei Shabbat. The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 adds that if it was omitted in havdalah it can be recited afterwards until Olot Hashachar based on the Eshel Avraham.</ref>
#What exactly is the nusach of the bracha?
##The Ashkenaz minhag is to make Boreh Minei Besamim (בורא מיני בשמים) - the generic bracha for fragrance - irrespective of what is actually being used for besamim at Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1 explains that we always just use this bracha since it can in theory be said on any spice, and we don't want the masses getting confused amongst all the possible variations of brachot on smells.</ref>
##According to Sephardim, one should make the appropriate bracha for that type of besamim.
###E.g. If it's a tree, then "boreh atzei besamim", and if it's a grass then "boreh isvei besamim".<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19) </ref>
#What type of spices should be used?
##There is a Sephardic practice to use hadasim when possible.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:4. Mishna Brurah 297:8 explains that this is referring to the hadas from the lulav that was used on sukkot, the idea being that since it was already used for a mitzvah, it's fitting to use it for other mitzvot as well. Rama notes that many times the hadas is too dried out to really smell like anything, and therefore it's best to just add it to a mix of other spices, but not to use the hadas exclusively.</ref>
##As mentioned above, Ashkenazim always make the bracha of "minei besamim", and so it is proper to use something which actually has that bracha, such as cloves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19), The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
##It is a nice thing to have a designated spice box of besamim for havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:10 cites from the Tur that Rabbeinu Efraim used to have a glass box filled with spices that he designated for this purpose. Even though one can in theory use any spice around the house for havdalah, the Mishna Brurah concludes that it's a mitzvah min hamuvchar (ideal practice) to designate spices for the mitzvah, and that this is indeed the common minhag in klal yisroel. </ref>
# Someone who can't smell should not recite the bracha on besamim, unless he is reciting havdalah for someone else who can smell.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:5, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
# If one isn't sure if the spice has a smell, one may smell it in advance without a bracha.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 132 citing Kaf Hachaim 216:3. He adds that this was the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein to smell the besamim before the havdalah to check if it smelled. </ref>
## If the spice container is old and in fact doesn't smell and one only realizes after the bracha, the bracha he recited is invalid and the hagefen was also interrupted. Therefore, he should recite another hagefen and a new besamim on another spice if it is available.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 133 </ref>

=== Fire ===
# What if one doesn't have fire?
## One need not go out of their way to try to find fire to say the bracha of "boreh me'orei ha'eish" on it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:1. Mishna Brurah 298:1 explains that the reason we say a bracha on fire on motzei shabbat is because the gemara in pesachim 54b relates that Hashem first showed Adam Harishon how to make fire on motzei shabbat, and so we make a bracha on it to commemorate this event. Since the only reason for this bracha is to commemorate this event, it is not critical to make it, and thus one need not burden themselves seeking out a fire on motzei shabbat. </ref>
## If one made havdala without fire, but gets fire later on motzei shabbat, he should make the bracha then.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:3</ref>
# Turning off the (electric) lights
##A person needs to be able to benefit from the fire in order to recite the bracha over it.<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one can't make the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat until he benefits from it. The gemara 53b cites a debate whether this is meant to be literal or not. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that one need not actually be close enough to the fire to benefit, but rather that it just needs to be a fire big enough that one could in theory benefit if he was close enough. Rava argues that the mishna is literal, and chizkiya explains that this means that one needs to be close enough to be able to distinguish between two different types of coins. The Beit Yosef cites a machloket rishonim regarding how to pasken. The Rashba paskens like rav yehudah (don't need to be close to the fire), but the Rif and Rosh just cite the mishna with no clarification, implying that it should be read literally like rava (need to be close enough to benefit). The Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:25 explicitly paskens like rava as explained by chizkiyah. The Maggid Mishna clarifies that even rava doesn't actually require one to benefit from the light. One need not literally use it to distinguish between two coins. Rather, one needs to be close enough such that if he had two coins in his hand, he could distinguish between them.</ref> Therefore, some turn off the electric lights when making Havdalah.<ref>Rivevot Efraim 2:115:32 citing Teshuvot Vehanhagot 6:90.</ref>
##However, others hold that the strict halacha doesn't require turning off the lights.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 2 p. 439, Yalkut Yosef 298:10 Shabbat v. 1 p. 477. See Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 12, who cites that the practice of the Chazon Ish was to leave the electric lights on. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 49)] explains that one need not turn off the electric lights, since all that is required is that one be close enough to the fire to be able (in theory) to benefit from the light and see the difference between different coins (but one need not actually benefit from the fire, and thus the electric lights can remain on).</ref>
#Where to look?
##The minhag is to look at one's fingernails during the havdalah in order to indicate that one is getting benefit from the candle, to see the difference between one's nails and flesh.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 298:3, Zohar 2:208b:2</ref>
##One needs to stand close enough to the fire such that he could in theory benefit from it.
###Therefore, if one is in a big room, one should try to get closer to the fire.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:13.</ref>
###If one can't get close, then they should have in mind not to be yotzeh the bracha on fire, and then get closer after havdala and make the bracha on the fire themselves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:13 (at the end)</ref>
#What kind of fire?
##Two wicks:
###It is preferable that one make the bracha on an "avuka" (lit: torch).<ref>The gemara pesachim 103b states that it is ideal to use an "avuka" for havdala. Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:26 cites this. Maggid Mishna explains that an "avuka" is a fire that has a lot of wood and a lot of flames. Shulchan Aruch 298:2 paskens this. Perhaps the idea is that a more substantive fire is more impressive and thus helps one better appreciate the chesed that Hashem did by showing Adam Harishon how to make fire. </ref>
###A candle that has two wicks (or two candles that one holds together such that their flames coalesce) is halachically equivalent to an avuka.<ref>Rama 298:2. Mishna Brurah 298:8 adds that if one takes two separate candles but just holds them together such that their flames touch, this is also considered an avuka.</ref>
##Electric light:
###Some poskim allow one to use an electric light in place of a havdala candle in a time of need.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6, Az Nidberu 8:2, Rivevot Ephraim 3:599. see also Mishpitei Uziel OC 1:9 </ref>
####In fact, it is reported that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky would always use an electric bulb for havdala in order to demonstrate how strongly he felt that electricity is to be treated exactly like fire from the perspective of halacha.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6. Sh"t Nachalat Shimon 15 says this was the practice of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik </ref>
####Even among the authorities who permit the use of electric lights if need be, many disqualify the use of fluorescent bulbs, as they work differently than standard light bulbs.<ref>Hachashmal L’or Hahalacha 3:88 </ref>
###Nevertheless, there are those authorities who discourage the use of an electric light for havdala.<ref>Har Tzvi 2:114, Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:39, Maharshag 2:107, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Raphael Baruch Toledano pg. 323. One argument they make is that the blessing recited upon the havdalah candle includes the word "fire", which seems to imply the need for actual fire, not merely light. </ref>
##Fire that "rested":
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that was lit on shabbat by a Jew or nonJew.<ref>The gemara brachot 52b cites a beraita that one may only make havdala on a flame which was "shavat" (lit: rested). Rashi explains that this means that the flame can't have been lit in a prohibited manner. Certainly then, if a Jew lights the flame on shabbat, one may not use it for havdala. However, one might have thought that if a nonJew lights it on shabbat, it would be allowed, since nonJews aren't supposed to keep shabbat! Nonetheless, the Tur explains that even if it was lit by a nonJew, it's considered to not be "shavat", since it was prohibited for a Jew to light it at that time. Shulchan Aruch 298:5 paskens this way. Thus the flame has to have either been lit since before shabbat, lit after shabbat ended, or lit on shabbat for the purpose of pikuach nefesh. </ref>
###The flame need not have been lit on erev shabbat in order to make havdala on it (in contrast to Yom Kippur, which does have this extra requirement).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:8. Mishna Brurah 298:26 explains that on motzei shabbat we make a bracha on fire to commemorate its inception when Hashem showed Adam Harishon how to make it (see gemara pesachim 54a). Therefore, a fire created on motzei shabbat is perfectly suitable for the job. However, on motzei yom kippur we make a bracha on fire to demonstrate how yom kippur is different from other yomim tovim (in which one may use fire to cook), and thus it's specifically through a fire that was around during yom kippur (but just not in use) that this can be accomplished.</ref>
##Fire made for the purpose of light:
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that wasn't lit for the purpose of giving light<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one may not make the bracha on a fire that was lit to give honor to a deceased individual. The gemara 53a explains that this is a problem since one may only make a bracha on a fire that was lit for the purpose of giving light. </ref> (e.g. it was lit to give honor to an important person or place<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:11 discusses making the bracha on the flame in the shul. The determining factor is whether this light is merely for honor (either of the shul itself or of some important person who davens therein), or for light. The Mishna Brurah 298:30 states from the Rosh that one may not make the bracha on the ner tamid, since this is clearly just for the honor of the shul, as indicated by the fact that it is lit during the day as well. </ref>, to cook with<ref>See Shulchan Aruch 298:10 based on gemara brachot 53a.</ref>, for warmth, etc.).
##Fire behind glass
###There is a debate whether one may make the bracha on a fire that one sees behind glass, and so ideally one should be able to actually see the flames.<ref>The Beit Yosef cites a yerushalmi that one has to both be able to see the flame (רואה את השלהבת) and also have the ability to benefit from the flame (משתמש לאורה) in order to make the bracha of "me'orei ha'eish" on it. The yerushalmi gives a few examples which wouldn't satisfy these requirements, and one such an example is a fire inside of an "aspaklarya" (lit: looking glass of some sort). The Shulchan Aruch 298:15 paskens this way. However, the Magen Avraham 298:20 cites from the Rashba that if the fire is behind glass, this is still ok, since the fire is visible behind the glass and one can still benefit from its light. The Beit Yosef himself cites this Rashba, but is bothered how he seemingly is paskening against the aforementioned yerushalmi. The Magen Avraham defends the Rashba by suggesting that the yerushalmi was never saying that one can't use an aspaklarya, but the Biur Halacha 298:15 finds this reading of the yerushalmi difficult. Instead, he suggests that the Rashba thinks that the bavli argues on the yerushalmi, and he simply paskens like the Bavli. However, he conludes (see also Mishna Brurah 298:37) that since many poskim are machmir like the Shulchan Aruch, one should not be lenient in this matter, and should make sure the flame is visible (not behind glass) when making the bracha. </ref>
###One need not remove their eyeglasses when making the bracha.<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 30 cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen and the Ketzos Hashulchan who are bothered why the minhag is that people don't remove their glasses, given that the conclusion of the Mishna Brurah (see previous note) was to be machmir (like the Shulchan Aruch against the Rashba) not to have the flame behind glass. They cite from Rav Nissim Karelitz that since the eyeglasses are batel to the person wearing them, they aren't considered to be covering up the flame, and so we look at the flame as if it is still fully exposed (in contrast to when the flame itself is behind glass). </ref>

==Timing==

=== Saying Havdalah Early ===
#If one is has an extreme need, such as a need to travel to the end of the [[Techum]] for the purpose of performing a mitzvah immediately after [[Shabbat]], one may pray [[Arvit]] starting from Plag [[Mincha]] (ten and three quarter hours into the day). In such a case one may also say havdalah early, but one may not say the bracha on the candle (meorei ha'eish). Even in such a case, it is certainly forbidden to do melacha (activity which is forbidden on [[Shabbat]]) until [[Tzet HaKochavim]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 293:3 </ref>

=== Until When Can One Say Havdalah? ===
#If one forgot to say havdalah on Motzei Shabbat, one can say it until Tuesday.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 299:6. The Shulchan Aruch cites another opinion that one may only say havdala up until Sunday evening, this is only brought as a "yesh omrim", and the Rama explicitly paskens leniently like the stam. Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer 6:48:13) was concerned about safek brachot and wrote that one couldn't say havdala after Sunday, but he later retracted (Yabia Omer 7:47) and followed Shulchan Aruch, since the machloket is about the mitzvah and not the bracha. Yalkut Yosef 299:7 writes that one who recites the bracha past Sunday isn't scorned. However, in a shiur given on [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Motzei Shabbat (Matot Masei 5778 min 44-47)], he seemed to support the last ruling of Rav Ovadia.</ref>

==Standing vs Sitting for Havdalah==

#The Sephardic minhag is to sit for havdalah. However, the Ashkenazic minhag is to stand.<ref>The mishna brachot 42a says that only when everyone is "reclining" is one person able to make a bracha on the bread to exempt the others who are eating. Rashi explains that reclining lends the meal a permanence (kvi'ut). Tosfot brachot 43a is bothered how the minhag is to stand during [[Havadalah]], as this seemingly should prevent one person from being motzi others, as there is no kvi'ut (nowadays sitting accomplishes kvi'ut since we don't recline while eating). Tosfot suggests that perhaps since havdala is a mitzvah, everyone is "kove'ah" themselves to listen to the mitzvah, and therefore they can also be yotzeh in the bracha of hagafen on the wine. However, tosfot concludes that ideally one should sit for havdala to avoid the issue. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch 296:6 rules that one should sit during Havdalah. However, Rama 296:6 and the Gra (Maaseh Rav pg 103, #150) write that the Ashkenazic practice is to stand for Havdalah. Mishna Brurah 296:27 explains that the reason for the Ashkenazic minhag is to escort the [[Shabbat]] queen out, and escorting must be done standing. He adds that one can fulfill the obligation of others even when standing because everyone is assembled expressed for that purpose and has kavana to fulfill their obligation (like tosfot said). Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuva Siman 3 quoted in back of Radiance of [[Shabbos]]) writes that his personal minhag was to sit like his father's minhag, but because of the rishonim who hold that one may stand, one should not change one's minhag. The Dirshu Mishna Brurah 296 footnote 24 cites that the Chafetz Chaim used to stand for havdala. </ref>

==Eating / Doing Work before making Havdalah==

#Before one says Havdalah, one may not doing any Melacha. If one made Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one may do Melacha. If one needs to do Melacha before saying Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one should say "HaMavdil Ben Kodesh LeChol" (which is not a bracha) and then do Melacha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:10. Rav Schachter (Eretz HaTzvi p. 57) permits preparing the wine for Havdalah because [[Hachana]] isn’t considered a Melacha and may be done after [[Shabbat]] before Havdalah. </ref>
#One shouldn't say "Baruch hamavdil ben kodesh lechol" in a bathroom.<ref>Avnei Yishpeh 6:10:1 writes that one shouldn't say hamavdil ben kodesh lechol in a bathroom since it is doing a mitzvah and similar to divrei kedusha. Dor Hamelaktim v. 2 p. 1072 quotes this from Rav Chaim Kanievsky as well. However, it quotes Minchat Shabbat who permits it.</ref> If one needs to, one should say "Hamavdil ben kodesh lchol" without the word baruch.<ref>Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky (Kovetz Halachot Shabbat v. 1 p. 779)</ref>
# One may not eat until one made Havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:1</ref> This prohibition begins from after sunset even though it is halachically twilight.<ref>Magen Avraham 299:1, Mishna Brurah 299:1 unlike Taz 299:1 who allows eating during ben hashemashot.</ref>
#It is permissible to use a non-religious Jewish taxi driver on [[Motzei Shabbat]] even though the taxi-driver didn't make Havdalah.<ref>Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 12:37 writes that saying "Have a good week" does not fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah. Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 11:34 and 12:38 writes that there's no an issue of asking an non-religious Jew to do work for him after [[Shabbat]] since they aren't going to say Havdalah anyway, the prohibition not to do work before Havdalah doesn't set in. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=308 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] explains this ruling. See also [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735734/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Taking_a_Taxi_in_Israel_on_Motzai_Shabbos Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on yutorah.org].</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/839837/rabbi-shay-schachter/understanding-havdalah-on-motzai-shabbos/ Understanding Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos by Rabbi Shay Schachter]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/813392/rabbi-hershel-schachter/havdalah/ Havdalah] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Prayer]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Havdalah

2024-08-30T21:57:52Z

Gsilver2: /* Fire */

{{Okay}}
[[Image:Havdalah.jpg|200px|right]]
Havdalah is the ceremony of separation between every [[Shabbat]] and weekday, [[Yom Tov]] and weekday, or [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]]. Havdalah is said after Shabbat and Yom Tov during Shemone Esrei of maariv within the bracha of ata chonen, and when on Yom Tov, within the bracha of ata vchartanu. It is recited another time over a cup of wine.
==Obligation==

#There's a dispute whether the obligation to recite havdalah is of biblical or rabbinic nature. The obligation to recite havdalah over wine is certainly rabbinic.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that the command of "Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]" (Shemot 20:7) - to remember the Shabbat - includes the positive mitzvot of [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] and Havdalah every week, as these mitzvot serve to mark the beginning and end of shabbat and distinguish it from the rest of the week. Other Rishonim agree with Rambam, including Ravi’ah [[Brachot]] 3:1, Ritvah as quoted by the Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 55, and Sefer Hachinuch Mitvah 31. However, Tosfot (Tosfot Nazir 4a s.v. My Hee in name of Rabbenu Tam) and the Rosh (Sh"t 11:3) hold that only kiddush is deorayta, but havdalah is drabbanan. Mishna Brurah 296:1 quotes both opinions and adds that if one said havdalah in [[Tefillah]], then the havdalah on the wine is certainly drabbanan.</ref>
#Even though one says havdalah during davening at maariv (ata chonantanu), one must still recite havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>The gemara brachot 33a states that one who says havdalah during davening (as one is supposed to do), must still say havdalah over a cup of wine as well (המבדיל בתפילה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס). This is codified by Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:6, and Shulchan Aruch 294:1.</ref>

===Havdalah for Yom Tov===

#After [[Yom Tov]], which is followed by a regular weekday or a day of [[Chol HaMoed]], one should say Havdalah. However, if a [[Yom Tov]] is followed by a [[Shabbat]], there is no Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Chullin 26b, Gemara [[Shabbat]] 114b, Rambam [[Shabbat]] 5:21 and 29:18, Shulchan Aruch 491:1</ref>
#Havdalah at the end of [[Yom Tov]] only consists of the bracha of hamavdil, and there is no bracha of [[besamim]] or ner.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:1, Mishna Brurah 491:1</ref>

===When Motzei Shabbat is a Yom Tov===

#If motzei shabbat is yom tov, one may use the Yom Tov candles for havdalah.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6)</ref>
#It is preferable not to hold the two candles together.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6) based on Biur Halacha 514:2 s.v. veyechabeh. Yom Tov Sheni Khilchato ch. 1 fnt. 67 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted from Rav Efraim Greenblatt) as explaining that although generally we prefer to use a torch with two or more wicks for havdalah, on Yom Tov we avoid this. The reason is that on yom tov holding two candles together is likely going to come to an issue of extinguishing one of the candles more quickly. Even if they are touching it is permitted to detach them. Yet he also cites Rabbi Eider (Halachos of Shabbos 266 fnt. 34) who in the name of Rav Moshe permits putting them together. He concludes with a citation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 669 and YD 1 that even on a regular motzei Shabbat two candles next to one another is sufficient, yet we don't generally follow that opinion (Magen Avraham 298:4).</ref>

=== Who is Obligated? ===

==== Women ====
#There is a dispute as to whether women are obligated in havdalah.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that havdalah is a positive biblical mitzvah, just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]]. [[Maggid]] Mishna (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) understands from the Rambam that women are obligated in havdalah just like they are obligated in [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (since we compare "zachor" to "shamor"). [[Maggid]] Mishna suggests that even according to those who argue on the Rambam and hold that havdalah is only drabanan, women are still obligated, since presumably the rabbis instituted havdalah to be just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון). Beit Yosef cites from Rabbenu Yonah who agrees that women are obligated in havdala just like kiddush.

*However, Beit Yosef 296 cites from the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Havdalah 18) that women shouldn't make havdalah for themselves since perhaps they aren't obligated and it would be a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Brurah 296:34 explains that the reason why women wouldn't be obligated is if we view havdalah as a regular positive time-bound mitzvah, from which women are exempt. Even though havdala is connected to shabbat, since its actual performance takes place after shabbat, it is not viewed as fundamentally a "shabbat mitzvah" and hence not included in the hekesh of "zachor v'shamor". Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 296:8 rules as Stam (anonymous opinion) that women are obligated in Havdalah.</ref>
##According to Sephardim women may make havdalah for themselves.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27. </ref>
##Some Ashkenazim say that women should not recite [[havadalah]] for themselves, while others say that they may.<ref>The Rama 296:8 states that women shouldn't recite Havdalah for themselves, in order to be chosheish for the shita that perhaps they are not obligated in havdalah, and so saying it would constitute a bracha l'vatala. However, this is very difficult to understand. We know that in general the Ashkenazi shita is that women are allowed to make brachot on mitzvot in which they are not obligated (such as lulav or shofar), so why should havdalah be any different? Indeed, the Bach thinks this question is so strong that he rejects the Rama and concludes that women may recite havdalah lechatchila. </ref> Many say that preferably a woman should hear havdalah from a man to avoid questions of bracha l'vatala, but if she cannot find someone from whom to hear havdalah, then she should recite it for herself.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 agrees to the Bach. Mishna Brurah 296:35 concludes that a woman should not recite Havdalah for herself unless she can't find someone to hear Havdalah from. In 296:36 he writes that certainly a woman should recite it for herself if she can't find someone else to recite for her, or the only person available to say it for her already fulfilled his obligation (since for him to repeat havdalah for her would constitute a bracha l'vatala if she is, in fact, not obligated). See [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/740210/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Havdalah_for_Women audio shiur] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.</ref>
###When a women makes a havdala, she should certainly recite the brachot of hagefen and besamim.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 explains that since these two brachot are made over receiving enjoyment from something (ברכת הנהנין), and are not brachot for the mitzvah of havdala (ברכת המצוה), they may certainly be made by anyone. Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) cites this Magen Avraham approvingly.</ref>
###Most say that a woman can even recite the beracha on the fire.<ref>Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) discusses whether according to the opinion that women are obligated in havdalah, would they also be obligated in the bracha on the ner. Perhaps since this bracha was really established by chazal to commemorate the fact that fire was created on motzei shabbat, and is thus not intrinsically connected to havdalah (but is rather just said along with havdalah over the cup of wine), it is like any other positive time-bound mitzvah in which women are exempt. One proof that the bracha on the ner isn't really connected to havdalah inherently is the fact that if one doesn't have a fire one is not obligated to go find one, but can just say havdalah on the cup of wine without it (Shulchan Aruch 298:1). Another proof is that one may say the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat outside the context of havdala, whenever one finds a fire. He concludes that they probably are not obligated in the bracha of ner even if they are obligated in havdalah.

*Even though they are not obligated in the bracha of ner, and even though it is a birchat hamitzvah and not a birchat hanehenin, nonetheless one would think that it should be like any other bracha on a mitzvah, which ashkenazim hold that women may make. Indeed, Sh"t Iggerot Moshe CM 2:47:2, Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 14:43, Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27, all pasken this way. See also Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 296 footnote 34), which cites Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievskt, and the Shoneh Halachot as agreeing. </ref> Others disagree.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 58:16 </ref>

==== Children ====
#Once a child has reached the age of [[Chinuch]] (5 or 6), the parents should train him in hearing havdalah.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Dinei [[Chinuch]] Katan pg. 177 </ref>

==Havdalah in Tefilah==

#See the [[Atta Chonantanu]] page.
#If [[Motzei Shabbat]] is a [[Yom Tov]], in middle of Atta Bechartanu, one should insert VeTodiyanu in place of [[Atta Chonantanu]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:2, Mishna Brurah 491:4. see [[Atta_Chonantanu#VeTodienu | Vetodienu]] </ref>

==Havdalah in Shul==

#The chazan recites havdalah in shul on behalf of those who have no wine or who will not recite havdalah for themselves at home.<ref>Tur 295, Shulchan Aruch 295:1.</ref>
##Whoever wishes can listen to the chazan's havdalah in shul and fulfill his obligation, even though he is not holding a cup of wine.
###It is a widespread minhag in our times for the chazan to recite havdalah in shul, and there is no need to protest the custom. It should be made clear to the congregation, however, that everyone must recite Havdalah at home on behalf of his family members who have not heard it in the synagogue, even though he himself did hear it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 1 </ref>
##If one plans on saying havdalah at home for his family, then he should not have kavana to fulfill his obligation with the chazan.<ref>Mishna Brurah 295:6 explains that one who does have wine should not fulfill his obligation with the chazan, but rather should wait until he gets home, such that he will be able to say havdalah for his wife and kids. He refers one to the Shulchan Aruch 296:7, who writes that if one doesn't have kavana to be yotzeh havdalah in shul, then they aren't yotzeh and should say it at home. Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes that it's proper for every person to make havdalah at home for their family.

*Does one have to actively have kavana to NOT be yotzeh in shul, or does it suffice to simply not have active kavana to BE yotzeh? The Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes in the name of the Levush that nowadays since the common practice is that people recite havdalah again when they get home to their family, the default is that people do not have kavana to be yotzeh in shul. Therefore, one does not need to actively think to themselves during the chazan's recital of havdalah that they don't want to be yotzeh. Similarly, one who does want to be yotzeh with the chazan's havdalah, has to actively have in mind that they are fulfilling their obligation with his recital.

*If the husband does have kavana to fulfill his obligation in shul, then he may not recite havdalah for his wife and kids under the age of chinuch at home, since this might constitute a bracha l'vatala (see Mishna Brurah 296:36). In such a case, the wife, should say havdalah for herself. See above section on Women and Havdalah. </ref>
#The opinion of the Geonim is that whoever recites [[Kiddush]] or Havdalah must drink at least melo lugmav of the wine, and if he does not, then he has not fulfilled his obligation. A person should be strict for this opinion.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 271:13 paskens that one needs to drink a m'lo lugmav of the cup of kiddush, which he thinks is the majority of a reviit. The Mishna Brurah 296:9 cites from the Magen Avraham that the same applies to havdalah as well. </ref>
##Therefore the person who is chosen to recite Havdalah in the synagogue must be someone who will be able to drink melo lugmav. If the only person capable of reciting Havdalah is someone who cannot drink that much wine, then he should recite Havdalah, taste a sip of the wine, and then give it to another person who can drink melo lugmav. He should inform that person beforehand that he should have in mind when listening to the blessing of boreh peri hagefen that he will drink from the cup afterward.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 3 </ref>
#If someone is not sure whether or not he will have wine available at home for havdalah, he should listen to the chazan recite havdalah in shul, but stipulate in his mind that he wishes to fulfill his obligation only if he has no wine at home. Then, if he finds that there is wine available at home, he may recite havdalah for himself in accordance with the condition he made.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 4 </ref>

==Havdalah on a Cup of Wine==

=== The Order of Havdalah ===
#The order of the [[Brachot]] of Havdalah is Yayin (Hagefen), [[Besamim]], Ner (Meorei HaEsh), Havdalah (Hamavdil).<ref>The Mishna Brachot 51b cites a debate between beit shamai and beit hillel with respect to the proper order of the four brachot associated with havdalah (hagafen on the wine, besamim on the incense, me'orei ha'eish on the fire, and havdalah itself). The gemara 52a cites a beraita in which Rebbe Yehudah explains the position of beit hillel as follows: yayin, besamim, ner, havdalah. The gemara explains that the reason why havdalah comes last is because we want to delay the leaving of shabbat as much as possible. Shulchan Aruch 296:1 paskens like this. </ref>
#The custom is to add several pesukim prior to Havdalah for a good sign. For the full Ashkenazic text see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.aish.com%2Fmisc%2Fhavdallah.pdf here]. For the full Sephardic text see [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/zmirot/motsaey-2.htm here].<ref>*The Ashkenazic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי לי לישועה: ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה: ליהוה הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה: יהוה צבאות עמנו משגב לנו אלהי יעקב סלה: יהוה צבאות אשרי אדם בטח בך: יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר, כן תהיה לנו: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם יהוה אקרא:
*The source for the Ashkenazic text is the following: the Rama 296:1 writes that before the Bracha of Havdalah one should say Yishaya 12:2-3, Ester 8:16, Tehillim 116:13. The Aruch HaShulchan 296:8 adds 4 more pesukim after the ones in Yishaya from Tehillim 3:9, 46:8, 84:13, and 20:10. He also adds that after Ester 8:16 one should say 'כן תהיה לנו'.
*The Sephardic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה' אקרא: אנא ה' הושיעה נא אנא ה' הצליחה נא: הצליחנו הצליח דרכינו הצליח לימודינו וכו' ושלח ברכה רוחה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידינו כדכתיב ישא ברכה מאת ה' וצדקה מאלהי ישענו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששק ויקר: וכתיב ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו, כן יהיה עמנו תמיד: ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', כן נמצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלוקים ואדם: אלהא דמאיר עננו: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום:
*The source for the Sephardic text is the following: Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 449-50) writes that the Sephardic minhag is to say the following order before Havdalah: Tehillim 116:13, 118:25, a [[prayer]] beginning with הצליחנו and ending with a Tehillim 24:5, Ester 8:16, Shmuel 1:18:14, Beresheet 6:8, a [[prayer]] beginning with אלהא דמאיר, and Devarim 4:4.</ref>
#If the cup of havdalah falls and spills out completely they should get a new cup of wine and recite a new hagefen. If they already got involved in another activity (hesech hadaat) they need to recite havdalah again.<ref>Piskei Teshuvot 296:11</ref>

=== Wine vs Other Beverages ===
#If one has wine, wine has precedence over any other drink.<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:8, citing the Ohr Zaruah.</ref>
##Red wine is preferable, but white wine is permissible if only white wine is available.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 82 </ref>
##One may use grape juice for havdalah.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 408 writes that grape juice is practically like wine and is thus more preferable than chamar medina; Chazon Ovadia v. 1 p. 99 writes that grape juice is fit for kiddush and havdalah based on the Gemara Bava Batra 97a. He ends that even though it is pasteurized it is still like wine for all intents and purposes since it tastes like non-fermented wine (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 272:3). This is also in Yalkut Yosef 202 fnt. 8. Listen to [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 36)] who seems to contradict this as he says that grape juice is unfit for havdalah.</ref>
##One may not use bread for havdalah, even though one may use it for kiddush Friday night.<ref>Tur 296 citing Rav Amram Gaon. Beit Yosef explains that the Friday night kiddush is connected to the meal and so it's reasonable that bread would be a valid substitute for kiddush. But havdalah on motzei shabbat is not connected to any seudah and therefore one may not make havdalah on bread. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 296:2. </ref>
#However, if one prefers chamar medina (see below section), then they may make havdalah on it, even if they have wine available.<ref>The Rama 296:2 writes that the minhag is to make havdalah on motzei pesach on beer since at that point it will have been over a week since drinking beer, so people are very excited about drinking it (it's more חביב - precious). The Biur Halacha (296:2 s.v. im hu chamar medina) learns from this Rama that any time one prefers chamar medina to wine, then they may make havdalah on it. He explains that when it comes to kiddush, there is a debate in the rishonim whether one can fulfill their obligation with chamar medina, and so we try to avoid it. However, everyone agrees that one can fulfill their obligation of havdalah with chamar medina, and so we are less hesitant to do so. </ref>

==== What if There's no Wine / Grape Juice? ====
#If there is no wine or grape juice available, then one can use chamar medina for havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 296:2</ref> What is chamar medina?{{Definition of Chamar Medina}}
===How Much to Drink===

# The one reciting havdalah should ideally drink a reviyit, in order to be able to recite a bracha achrona. After the fact, if they drank a melo lugmav, it is sufficient (and they just shouldn't make a bracha achrona). If someone drank only a tiny sip of the wine and not a melo lugmav, some say that they did not fulfill their obligation even after the fact,<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:9, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 60:36</ref> while others hold that one fulfilled the mitzvah but just not in the ideal way.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 190:4, Pri Megadim EA 271:24, Aruch Hashulchan 296:15, Kaf Hachaim 296:16, Or Letzion 2:20:7, Tzitz Eliezer 19:21:1, Yachava Daat 3:40, Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat 1-4, 5773 edition, 296:27), Piskei Teshuvot 296:11, and Rav Ben Tzion Felman in Moriya (257-259 p. 114) quoting Rav Aryeh Leib Shteinmann. Avnei Darech 9:40 rules that after the fact, if the one who made havdalah didn't drink the wine, those who heard it from him still fulfill their mitzvah, but if they want to be machmir to hear havdalah again from someone else then they can. He cites Migdanot Eliyahu 2:24 quoted Rashi, Raavan, and Baal Haitur that melo lugmav isn't maakev for havdalah. He quotes several other sources to this effect: Kaf Hachaim 296:15, Me'at Mayim 73, and Pekudat Eliezer 271 s.v. vtzarich li iyun.</ref>
# Those listening to the havdalah initially should not talk until after the one who recited havdalah drank melo lugmav. After the fact, if they talked after he drank a sip they fulfilled their obligation.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:257</ref>

=== Besamim ===
#What if there are no besamim?
##If someone doesn't have fragrant spices for besamim, one doesn't have to go out of his way to get them, and can recite havdalah without them.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:1, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 130. The gemara brachot 53b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of rav that one need not seek out a fire to make a bracha on motzei shabbat, in the way in which we typically try to seek out mitzvot. The Rosh 8:3 explains that this is because the bracha on fire is just a remembrance that fire was first created on motzei shabbat. He then says that all the more so one should not have to seek out besamim, since the whole point of besamim is just to restore the person's soul on motzei shabbat (להשבת נפשו). </ref>
##If one made havdalah without besamim, but gets them later on Motzei Shabbat, he can recite the bracha then.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:5 rules that the mitzvah of besamim is only on Motzei Shabbat. The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 adds that if it was omitted in havdalah it can be recited afterwards until Olot Hashachar based on the Eshel Avraham.</ref>
#What exactly is the nusach of the bracha?
##The Ashkenaz minhag is to make Boreh Minei Besamim (בורא מיני בשמים) - the generic bracha for fragrance - irrespective of what is actually being used for besamim at Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1 explains that we always just use this bracha since it can in theory be said on any spice, and we don't want the masses getting confused amongst all the possible variations of brachot on smells.</ref>
##According to Sephardim, one should make the appropriate bracha for that type of besamim.
###E.g. If it's a tree, then "boreh atzei besamim", and if it's a grass then "boreh isvei besamim".<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19) </ref>
#What type of spices should be used?
##There is a Sephardic practice to use hadasim when possible.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:4. Mishna Brurah 297:8 explains that this is referring to the hadas from the lulav that was used on sukkot, the idea being that since it was already used for a mitzvah, it's fitting to use it for other mitzvot as well. Rama notes that many times the hadas is too dried out to really smell like anything, and therefore it's best to just add it to a mix of other spices, but not to use the hadas exclusively.</ref>
##As mentioned above, Ashkenazim always make the bracha of "minei besamim", and so it is proper to use something which actually has that bracha, such as cloves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19), The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
##It is a nice thing to have a designated spice box of besamim for havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:10 cites from the Tur that Rabbeinu Efraim used to have a glass box filled with spices that he designated for this purpose. Even though one can in theory use any spice around the house for havdalah, the Mishna Brurah concludes that it's a mitzvah min hamuvchar (ideal practice) to designate spices for the mitzvah, and that this is indeed the common minhag in klal yisroel. </ref>
# Someone who can't smell should not recite the bracha on besamim, unless he is reciting havdalah for someone else who can smell.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:5, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
# If one isn't sure if the spice has a smell, one may smell it in advance without a bracha.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 132 citing Kaf Hachaim 216:3. He adds that this was the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein to smell the besamim before the havdalah to check if it smelled. </ref>
## If the spice container is old and in fact doesn't smell and one only realizes after the bracha, the bracha he recited is invalid and the hagefen was also interrupted. Therefore, he should recite another hagefen and a new besamim on another spice if it is available.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 133 </ref>

=== Fire ===
# What if one doesn't have fire?
## One need not go out of their way to try to find fire to say the bracha of "boreh me'orei ha'eish" on it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:1. Mishna Brurah 298:1 explains that the reason we say a bracha on fire on motzei shabbat is because the gemara in pesachim 54b relates that Hashem first showed Adam Harishon how to make fire on motzei shabbat, and so we make a bracha on it to commemorate this event. Since the only reason for this bracha is to commemorate this event, it is not critical to make it, and thus one need not burden themselves seeking out a fire on motzei shabbat. </ref>
## If one made havdala without fire, but gets fire later on motzei shabbat, he should make the bracha then.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:3</ref>
# Turning off the (electric) lights
##A person needs to be able to benefit from the fire in order to recite the bracha over it.<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one can't make the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat until he benefits from it. The gemara 53b cites a debate whether this is meant to be literal or not. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that one need not actually be close enough to the fire to benefit, but rather that it just needs to be a fire big enough that one could in theory benefit if he was close enough. Rava argues that the mishna is literal, and chizkiya explains that this means that one needs to be close enough to be able to distinguish between two different types of coins. The Beit Yosef cites a machloket rishonim regarding how to pasken. The Rashba paskens like rav yehudah (don't need to be close to the fire), but the Rif and Rosh just cite the mishna with no clarification, implying that it should be read literally like rava (need to be close enough to benefit). The Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:25 explicitly paskens like rava as explained by chizkiyah. The Maggid Mishna clarifies that even rava doesn't actually require one to benefit from the light. One need not literally use it to distinguish between two coins. Rather, one needs to be close enough such that if he had two coins in his hand, he could distinguish between them.</ref> Therefore, some turn off the electric lights when making Havdalah.<ref>Rivevot Efraim 2:115:32 citing Teshuvot Vehanhagot 6:90.</ref>
##However, others hold that the strict halacha doesn't require turning off the lights.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 2 p. 439, Yalkut Yosef 298:10 Shabbat v. 1 p. 477. See Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 12, who cites that the practice of the Chazon Ish was to leave the electric lights on. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 49)] explains that one need not turn off the electric lights, since all that is required is that one be close enough to the fire to be able (in theory) to benefit from the light and see the difference between different coins (but one need not actually benefit from the fire, and thus the electric lights can remain on).</ref>
#Where to look?
##The minhag is to look at one's fingernails during the havdalah in order to indicate that one is getting benefit from the candle, to see the difference between one's nails and flesh.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 298:3, Zohar 2:208b:2</ref>
##One needs to stand close enough to the fire such that he could in theory benefit from it.
###Therefore, if one is in a big room, one should try to get closer to the fire.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:13.</ref>
###If one can't get close, then they should have in mind not to be yotzeh the bracha on fire, and then get closer after havdala and make the bracha on the fire themselves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:13 (at the end)</ref>
#What kind of fire?
##Two wicks:
###It is preferable that one make the bracha on an "avuka" (lit: torch).<ref>The gemara pesachim 103b states that it is ideal to use an "avuka" for havdala. Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:26 cites this. Maggid Mishna explains that an "avuka" is a fire that has a lot of wood and a lot of flames. Shulchan Aruch 298:2 paskens this. Perhaps the idea is that a more substantive fire is more impressive and thus helps one better appreciate the chesed that Hashem did by showing Adam Harishon how to make fire. </ref>
###A candle that has two wicks (or two candles that one holds together such that their flames coalesce) is halachically equivalent to an avuka.<ref>Rama 298:2. Mishna Brurah 298:8 adds that if one takes two separate candles but just holds them together such that their flames touch, this is also considered an avuka.</ref>
##Electric light:
###Some poskim allow one to use an electric light in place of a havdala candle in a time of need.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6, Az Nidberu 8:2, Rivevot Ephraim 3:599. see also Mishpitei Uziel OC 1:9 </ref>
####In fact, it is reported that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky would always use an electric bulb for havdala in order to demonstrate how strongly he felt that electricity is to be treated exactly like fire from the perspective of halacha.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6. Sh"t Nachalat Shimon 15 says this was the practice of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik </ref>
####Even among the authorities who permit the use of electric lights if need be, many disqualify the use of fluorescent bulbs, as they work differently than standard light bulbs.<ref>Hachashmal L’or Hahalacha 3:88 </ref>
###Nevertheless, there are those authorities who discourage the use of an electric light for havdala.<ref>Har Tzvi 2:114, Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:39, Maharshag 2:107, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Raphael Baruch Toledano pg. 323. One argument they make is that the blessing recited upon the havdalah candle includes the word "fire", which seems to imply the need for actual fire, not merely light. </ref>
##Fire that "rested":
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that was lit on shabbat by a Jew or nonJew.<ref>The gemara brachot 52b cites a beraita that one may only make havdala on a flame which was "shavat" (lit: rested). Rashi explains that this means that the flame can't have been lit in a prohibited manner. Certainly then, if a Jew lights the flame on shabbat, one may not use it for havdala. However, one might have thought that if a nonJew lights it on shabbat, it would be allowed, since nonJews aren't supposed to keep shabbat! Nonetheless, the Tur explains that even if it was lit by a nonJew, it's considered to not be "shavat", since it was prohibited for a Jew to light it at that time. Shulchan Aruch 298:5 paskens this way. Thus the flame has to have either been lit since before shabbat, lit after shabbat ended, or lit on shabbat for the purpose of pikuach nefesh. </ref>
###The flame need not have been lit on erev shabbat in order to make havdala on it (in contrast to Yom Kippur, which does have this extra requirement).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:8. Mishna Brurah 298:26 explains that on motzei shabbat we make a bracha on fire to commemorate its inception when Hashem showed Adam Harishon how to make it (see gemara pesachim 54a). Therefore, a fire created on motzei shabbat is perfectly suitable for the job. However, on motzei yom kippur we make a bracha on fire to demonstrate how yom kippur is different from other yomim tovim (in which one may use fire to cook), and thus it's specifically through a fire that was around during yom kippur (but just not in use) that this can be accomplished.</ref>
##Fire made for the purpose of light:
###One can't make the bracha on a flame that wasn't lit for the purpose of giving light<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one may not make the bracha on a fire that was lit to give honor to a deceased individual. The gemara 53a explains that this is a problem since one may only make a bracha on a fire that was lit for the purpose of giving light. </ref> (e.g. it was lit to give honor to an important person or place<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:11 discusses making the bracha on the flame in the shul. The determining factor is whether this light is merely for honor (either of the shul itself or of some important person who davens therein), or for light. The Mishna Brurah 298:30 states from the Rosh that one may not make the bracha on the ner tamid, since this is clearly just for the honor of the shul, as indicated by the fact that it is lit during the day as well. </ref>, to cook with<ref>See Shulchan Aruch 298:10 based on gemara brachot 53a.</ref>, for warmth, etc.).
##Fire behind glass
###There is a debate whether one may make the bracha on a fire that one sees behind glass, and so ideally one should be able to actually see the flames.<ref>The Beit Yosef cites a yerushalmi that one has to both be able to see the flame (רואה את השלהבת) and also have the ability to benefit from the flame (משתמש לאורה) in order to make the bracha of "me'orei ha'eish" on it. The yerushalmi gives a few examples which wouldn't satisfy these requirements, and one such an example is a fire inside of an "aspaklarya" (lit: looking glass of some sort). The Shulchan Aruch 298:15 paskens this way. However, the Magen Avraham 298:20 cites from the Rashba that if the fire is behind glass, this is still ok, since the fire is visible behind the glass and one can still benefit from its light. The Beit Yosef himself cites this Rashba, but is bothered how he seemingly is paskening against the aforementioned yerushalmi. The Magen Avraham defends the Rashba by suggesting that the yerushalmi was never saying that one can't use an aspaklarya, but the Biur Halacha 298:15 finds this reading of the yerushalmi difficult. Instead, he suggests that the Rashba thinks that the bavli argues on the yerushalmi, and he simply paskens like the Bavli. However, he conludes (see also Mishna Brurah 298:37) that since many poskim are machmir like the Shulchan Aruch, one should not be lenient in this matter, and should make sure the flame is visible (not behind glass) when making the bracha. </ref>
###One need not remove their eyeglasses when making the bracha.<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 30 cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen and the Ketzos Hashulchan who are bothered why the minhag is that people don't remove their glasses, given that the conclusion of the Mishna Brurah (see previous note) was to be machmir (like the Shulchan Aruch against the Rashba) not to have the flame behind glass. They cite from Rav Nissim Karelitz that since the eyeglasses are batel to the person wearing them, they aren't considered to be covering up the flame, and so we look at the flame as if it is still fully exposed (in contrast to when the flame itself is behind glass). </ref>

==Timing==

=== Saying Havdalah Early ===
#If one is has an extreme need such as a need to travel to the end of the [[Techum]] for the purpose of a mitzvah after [[Shabbat]] one may pray [[Arvit]] starting from Plag [[Mincha]] (ten and three quarter hours into the day). In such a case one may also say Havdalah early but one may not say the Bracha on the candle (Meorei HaEsh). Even in such a case it is certainly forbidden to do Melacha (activity which is forbidden on [[Shabbat]]) until [[Tzet HaKochavim]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 293:3 </ref>

=== Until When Can One Say Havdalah? ===
#If one forgot to say Havdalah on Motzei Shabbat, one can say it until Tuesday.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 299:6. Even though Rav Ovadia (Yabia Omer 6:48:13) was concerned about Safek Brachot and wrote that one couldn't say it after Sunday, he later retracted (Yabia Omer 7:47) and followed Shulchan Aruch since the machloket is about the Mitzvah and not the bracha. Yalkut Yosef 299:7 writes that one who recites the bracha past Sunday isn't scorned. However, in a shiur given on [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Motzei Shabbat (Matot Masei 5778 min 44-47)] seemed to support the last ruling of Rav Ovadia.</ref>

==Standing vs Sitting for Havdalah==

#According to Sephardim, one should sit during Havdalah. However, the Ashkenazic minhag is to stand during [[Havadalah]].<ref>Tosfot 43a writes that to be included in [[Kiddish]] one should sit and then asks on those who stand during [[Havadalah]] because of the same issue. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch 296:6 rules that one should sit during Havdalah. However, Rama 296:6 and the Gra (Maaseh Rav pg 103, #150) write that the Ashkenazic practice is to stand for Havdalah. Mishna Brurah 296:27 explains that the reason for the Ashkenazic minhag is to escort the [[Shabbat]] queen out and escorting must be done standing. He adds that one can fulfill the obligation of others even when standing because everyone is assembled expressed for that purpose and has Kavana to fulfill their obligation. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuva Siman 3 quoted in back of Radiance of [[Shabbos]]) writes that his personal minhag was to sit like his father's minhag but because of the rishonim who hold that one may stand one should not change one's minhag. </ref>

==Eating / Doing Work before making Havdalah==

#Before one says Havdalah, one may not doing any Melacha. If one made Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one may do Melacha. If one needs to do Melacha before saying Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one should say "HaMavdil Ben Kodesh LeChol" (which is not a bracha) and then do Melacha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:10. Rav Schachter (Eretz HaTzvi p. 57) permits preparing the wine for Havdalah because [[Hachana]] isn’t considered a Melacha and may be done after [[Shabbat]] before Havdalah. </ref>
#One shouldn't say "Baruch hamavdil ben kodesh lechol" in a bathroom.<ref>Avnei Yishpeh 6:10:1 writes that one shouldn't say hamavdil ben kodesh lechol in a bathroom since it is doing a mitzvah and similar to divrei kedusha. Dor Hamelaktim v. 2 p. 1072 quotes this from Rav Chaim Kanievsky as well. However, it quotes Minchat Shabbat who permits it.</ref> If one needs to, one should say "Hamavdil ben kodesh lchol" without the word baruch.<ref>Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky (Kovetz Halachot Shabbat v. 1 p. 779)</ref>
# One may not eat until one made Havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:1</ref> This prohibition begins from after sunset even though it is halachically twilight.<ref>Magen Avraham 299:1, Mishna Brurah 299:1 unlike Taz 299:1 who allows eating during ben hashemashot.</ref>
#It is permissible to use a non-religious Jewish taxi driver on [[Motzei Shabbat]] even though the taxi-driver didn't make Havdalah.<ref>Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 12:37 writes that saying "Have a good week" does not fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah. Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 11:34 and 12:38 writes that there's no an issue of asking an non-religious Jew to do work for him after [[Shabbat]] since they aren't going to say Havdalah anyway, the prohibition not to do work before Havdalah doesn't set in. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=308 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] explains this ruling. See also [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735734/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Taking_a_Taxi_in_Israel_on_Motzai_Shabbos Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on yutorah.org].</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/839837/rabbi-shay-schachter/understanding-havdalah-on-motzai-shabbos/ Understanding Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos by Rabbi Shay Schachter]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/813392/rabbi-hershel-schachter/havdalah/ Havdalah] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Prayer]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Havdalah

2024-08-30T21:12:57Z

Gsilver2: /* Besamim */

{{Okay}}
[[Image:Havdalah.jpg|200px|right]]
Havdalah is the ceremony of separation between every [[Shabbat]] and weekday, [[Yom Tov]] and weekday, or [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]]. Havdalah is said after Shabbat and Yom Tov during Shemone Esrei of maariv within the bracha of ata chonen, and when on Yom Tov, within the bracha of ata vchartanu. It is recited another time over a cup of wine.
==Obligation==

#There's a dispute whether the obligation to recite havdalah is of biblical or rabbinic nature. The obligation to recite havdalah over wine is certainly rabbinic.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that the command of "Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]" (Shemot 20:7) - to remember the Shabbat - includes the positive mitzvot of [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] and Havdalah every week, as these mitzvot serve to mark the beginning and end of shabbat and distinguish it from the rest of the week. Other Rishonim agree with Rambam, including Ravi’ah [[Brachot]] 3:1, Ritvah as quoted by the Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 55, and Sefer Hachinuch Mitvah 31. However, Tosfot (Tosfot Nazir 4a s.v. My Hee in name of Rabbenu Tam) and the Rosh (Sh"t 11:3) hold that only kiddush is deorayta, but havdalah is drabbanan. Mishna Brurah 296:1 quotes both opinions and adds that if one said havdalah in [[Tefillah]], then the havdalah on the wine is certainly drabbanan.</ref>
#Even though one says havdalah during davening at maariv (ata chonantanu), one must still recite havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>The gemara brachot 33a states that one who says havdalah during davening (as one is supposed to do), must still say havdalah over a cup of wine as well (המבדיל בתפילה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס). This is codified by Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:6, and Shulchan Aruch 294:1.</ref>

===Havdalah for Yom Tov===

#After [[Yom Tov]], which is followed by a regular weekday or a day of [[Chol HaMoed]], one should say Havdalah. However, if a [[Yom Tov]] is followed by a [[Shabbat]], there is no Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Chullin 26b, Gemara [[Shabbat]] 114b, Rambam [[Shabbat]] 5:21 and 29:18, Shulchan Aruch 491:1</ref>
#Havdalah at the end of [[Yom Tov]] only consists of the bracha of hamavdil, and there is no bracha of [[besamim]] or ner.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:1, Mishna Brurah 491:1</ref>

===When Motzei Shabbat is a Yom Tov===

#If motzei shabbat is yom tov, one may use the Yom Tov candles for havdalah.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6)</ref>
#It is preferable not to hold the two candles together.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6) based on Biur Halacha 514:2 s.v. veyechabeh. Yom Tov Sheni Khilchato ch. 1 fnt. 67 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted from Rav Efraim Greenblatt) as explaining that although generally we prefer to use a torch with two or more wicks for havdalah, on Yom Tov we avoid this. The reason is that on yom tov holding two candles together is likely going to come to an issue of extinguishing one of the candles more quickly. Even if they are touching it is permitted to detach them. Yet he also cites Rabbi Eider (Halachos of Shabbos 266 fnt. 34) who in the name of Rav Moshe permits putting them together. He concludes with a citation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 669 and YD 1 that even on a regular motzei Shabbat two candles next to one another is sufficient, yet we don't generally follow that opinion (Magen Avraham 298:4).</ref>

=== Who is Obligated? ===

==== Women ====
#There is a dispute as to whether women are obligated in havdalah.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that havdalah is a positive biblical mitzvah, just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]]. [[Maggid]] Mishna (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) understands from the Rambam that women are obligated in havdalah just like they are obligated in [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (since we compare "zachor" to "shamor"). [[Maggid]] Mishna suggests that even according to those who argue on the Rambam and hold that havdalah is only drabanan, women are still obligated, since presumably the rabbis instituted havdalah to be just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון). Beit Yosef cites from Rabbenu Yonah who agrees that women are obligated in havdala just like kiddush.

*However, Beit Yosef 296 cites from the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Havdalah 18) that women shouldn't make havdalah for themselves since perhaps they aren't obligated and it would be a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Brurah 296:34 explains that the reason why women wouldn't be obligated is if we view havdalah as a regular positive time-bound mitzvah, from which women are exempt. Even though havdala is connected to shabbat, since its actual performance takes place after shabbat, it is not viewed as fundamentally a "shabbat mitzvah" and hence not included in the hekesh of "zachor v'shamor". Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 296:8 rules as Stam (anonymous opinion) that women are obligated in Havdalah.</ref>
##According to Sephardim women may make havdalah for themselves.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27. </ref>
##Some Ashkenazim say that women should not recite [[havadalah]] for themselves, while others say that they may.<ref>The Rama 296:8 states that women shouldn't recite Havdalah for themselves, in order to be chosheish for the shita that perhaps they are not obligated in havdalah, and so saying it would constitute a bracha l'vatala. However, this is very difficult to understand. We know that in general the Ashkenazi shita is that women are allowed to make brachot on mitzvot in which they are not obligated (such as lulav or shofar), so why should havdalah be any different? Indeed, the Bach thinks this question is so strong that he rejects the Rama and concludes that women may recite havdalah lechatchila. </ref> Many say that preferably a woman should hear havdalah from a man to avoid questions of bracha l'vatala, but if she cannot find someone from whom to hear havdalah, then she should recite it for herself.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 agrees to the Bach. Mishna Brurah 296:35 concludes that a woman should not recite Havdalah for herself unless she can't find someone to hear Havdalah from. In 296:36 he writes that certainly a woman should recite it for herself if she can't find someone else to recite for her, or the only person available to say it for her already fulfilled his obligation (since for him to repeat havdalah for her would constitute a bracha l'vatala if she is, in fact, not obligated). See [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/740210/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Havdalah_for_Women audio shiur] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.</ref>
###When a women makes a havdala, she should certainly recite the brachot of hagefen and besamim.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 explains that since these two brachot are made over receiving enjoyment from something (ברכת הנהנין), and are not brachot for the mitzvah of havdala (ברכת המצוה), they may certainly be made by anyone. Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) cites this Magen Avraham approvingly.</ref>
###Most say that a woman can even recite the beracha on the fire.<ref>Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) discusses whether according to the opinion that women are obligated in havdalah, would they also be obligated in the bracha on the ner. Perhaps since this bracha was really established by chazal to commemorate the fact that fire was created on motzei shabbat, and is thus not intrinsically connected to havdalah (but is rather just said along with havdalah over the cup of wine), it is like any other positive time-bound mitzvah in which women are exempt. One proof that the bracha on the ner isn't really connected to havdalah inherently is the fact that if one doesn't have a fire one is not obligated to go find one, but can just say havdalah on the cup of wine without it (Shulchan Aruch 298:1). Another proof is that one may say the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat outside the context of havdala, whenever one finds a fire. He concludes that they probably are not obligated in the bracha of ner even if they are obligated in havdalah.

*Even though they are not obligated in the bracha of ner, and even though it is a birchat hamitzvah and not a birchat hanehenin, nonetheless one would think that it should be like any other bracha on a mitzvah, which ashkenazim hold that women may make. Indeed, Sh"t Iggerot Moshe CM 2:47:2, Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 14:43, Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27, all pasken this way. See also Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 296 footnote 34), which cites Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievskt, and the Shoneh Halachot as agreeing. </ref> Others disagree.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 58:16 </ref>

==== Children ====
#Once a child has reached the age of [[Chinuch]] (5 or 6), the parents should train him in hearing havdalah.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Dinei [[Chinuch]] Katan pg. 177 </ref>

==Havdalah in Tefilah==

#See the [[Atta Chonantanu]] page.
#If [[Motzei Shabbat]] is a [[Yom Tov]], in middle of Atta Bechartanu, one should insert VeTodiyanu in place of [[Atta Chonantanu]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:2, Mishna Brurah 491:4. see [[Atta_Chonantanu#VeTodienu | Vetodienu]] </ref>

==Havdalah in Shul==

#The chazan recites havdalah in shul on behalf of those who have no wine or who will not recite havdalah for themselves at home.<ref>Tur 295, Shulchan Aruch 295:1.</ref>
##Whoever wishes can listen to the chazan's havdalah in shul and fulfill his obligation, even though he is not holding a cup of wine.
###It is a widespread minhag in our times for the chazan to recite havdalah in shul, and there is no need to protest the custom. It should be made clear to the congregation, however, that everyone must recite Havdalah at home on behalf of his family members who have not heard it in the synagogue, even though he himself did hear it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 1 </ref>
##If one plans on saying havdalah at home for his family, then he should not have kavana to fulfill his obligation with the chazan.<ref>Mishna Brurah 295:6 explains that one who does have wine should not fulfill his obligation with the chazan, but rather should wait until he gets home, such that he will be able to say havdalah for his wife and kids. He refers one to the Shulchan Aruch 296:7, who writes that if one doesn't have kavana to be yotzeh havdalah in shul, then they aren't yotzeh and should say it at home. Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes that it's proper for every person to make havdalah at home for their family.

*Does one have to actively have kavana to NOT be yotzeh in shul, or does it suffice to simply not have active kavana to BE yotzeh? The Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes in the name of the Levush that nowadays since the common practice is that people recite havdalah again when they get home to their family, the default is that people do not have kavana to be yotzeh in shul. Therefore, one does not need to actively think to themselves during the chazan's recital of havdalah that they don't want to be yotzeh. Similarly, one who does want to be yotzeh with the chazan's havdalah, has to actively have in mind that they are fulfilling their obligation with his recital.

*If the husband does have kavana to fulfill his obligation in shul, then he may not recite havdalah for his wife and kids under the age of chinuch at home, since this might constitute a bracha l'vatala (see Mishna Brurah 296:36). In such a case, the wife, should say havdalah for herself. See above section on Women and Havdalah. </ref>
#The opinion of the Geonim is that whoever recites [[Kiddush]] or Havdalah must drink at least melo lugmav of the wine, and if he does not, then he has not fulfilled his obligation. A person should be strict for this opinion.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 271:13 paskens that one needs to drink a m'lo lugmav of the cup of kiddush, which he thinks is the majority of a reviit. The Mishna Brurah 296:9 cites from the Magen Avraham that the same applies to havdalah as well. </ref>
##Therefore the person who is chosen to recite Havdalah in the synagogue must be someone who will be able to drink melo lugmav. If the only person capable of reciting Havdalah is someone who cannot drink that much wine, then he should recite Havdalah, taste a sip of the wine, and then give it to another person who can drink melo lugmav. He should inform that person beforehand that he should have in mind when listening to the blessing of boreh peri hagefen that he will drink from the cup afterward.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 3 </ref>
#If someone is not sure whether or not he will have wine available at home for havdalah, he should listen to the chazan recite havdalah in shul, but stipulate in his mind that he wishes to fulfill his obligation only if he has no wine at home. Then, if he finds that there is wine available at home, he may recite havdalah for himself in accordance with the condition he made.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 4 </ref>

==Havdalah on a Cup of Wine==

=== The Order of Havdalah ===
#The order of the [[Brachot]] of Havdalah is Yayin (Hagefen), [[Besamim]], Ner (Meorei HaEsh), Havdalah (Hamavdil).<ref>The Mishna Brachot 51b cites a debate between beit shamai and beit hillel with respect to the proper order of the four brachot associated with havdalah (hagafen on the wine, besamim on the incense, me'orei ha'eish on the fire, and havdalah itself). The gemara 52a cites a beraita in which Rebbe Yehudah explains the position of beit hillel as follows: yayin, besamim, ner, havdalah. The gemara explains that the reason why havdalah comes last is because we want to delay the leaving of shabbat as much as possible. Shulchan Aruch 296:1 paskens like this. </ref>
#The custom is to add several pesukim prior to Havdalah for a good sign. For the full Ashkenazic text see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.aish.com%2Fmisc%2Fhavdallah.pdf here]. For the full Sephardic text see [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/zmirot/motsaey-2.htm here].<ref>*The Ashkenazic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי לי לישועה: ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה: ליהוה הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה: יהוה צבאות עמנו משגב לנו אלהי יעקב סלה: יהוה צבאות אשרי אדם בטח בך: יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר, כן תהיה לנו: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם יהוה אקרא:
*The source for the Ashkenazic text is the following: the Rama 296:1 writes that before the Bracha of Havdalah one should say Yishaya 12:2-3, Ester 8:16, Tehillim 116:13. The Aruch HaShulchan 296:8 adds 4 more pesukim after the ones in Yishaya from Tehillim 3:9, 46:8, 84:13, and 20:10. He also adds that after Ester 8:16 one should say 'כן תהיה לנו'.
*The Sephardic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה' אקרא: אנא ה' הושיעה נא אנא ה' הצליחה נא: הצליחנו הצליח דרכינו הצליח לימודינו וכו' ושלח ברכה רוחה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידינו כדכתיב ישא ברכה מאת ה' וצדקה מאלהי ישענו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששק ויקר: וכתיב ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו, כן יהיה עמנו תמיד: ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', כן נמצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלוקים ואדם: אלהא דמאיר עננו: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום:
*The source for the Sephardic text is the following: Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 449-50) writes that the Sephardic minhag is to say the following order before Havdalah: Tehillim 116:13, 118:25, a [[prayer]] beginning with הצליחנו and ending with a Tehillim 24:5, Ester 8:16, Shmuel 1:18:14, Beresheet 6:8, a [[prayer]] beginning with אלהא דמאיר, and Devarim 4:4.</ref>
#If the cup of havdalah falls and spills out completely they should get a new cup of wine and recite a new hagefen. If they already got involved in another activity (hesech hadaat) they need to recite havdalah again.<ref>Piskei Teshuvot 296:11</ref>

=== Wine vs Other Beverages ===
#If one has wine, wine has precedence over any other drink.<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:8, citing the Ohr Zaruah.</ref>
##Red wine is preferable, but white wine is permissible if only white wine is available.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 82 </ref>
##One may use grape juice for havdalah.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 408 writes that grape juice is practically like wine and is thus more preferable than chamar medina; Chazon Ovadia v. 1 p. 99 writes that grape juice is fit for kiddush and havdalah based on the Gemara Bava Batra 97a. He ends that even though it is pasteurized it is still like wine for all intents and purposes since it tastes like non-fermented wine (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 272:3). This is also in Yalkut Yosef 202 fnt. 8. Listen to [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 36)] who seems to contradict this as he says that grape juice is unfit for havdalah.</ref>
##One may not use bread for havdalah, even though one may use it for kiddush Friday night.<ref>Tur 296 citing Rav Amram Gaon. Beit Yosef explains that the Friday night kiddush is connected to the meal and so it's reasonable that bread would be a valid substitute for kiddush. But havdalah on motzei shabbat is not connected to any seudah and therefore one may not make havdalah on bread. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 296:2. </ref>
#However, if one prefers chamar medina (see below section), then they may make havdalah on it, even if they have wine available.<ref>The Rama 296:2 writes that the minhag is to make havdalah on motzei pesach on beer since at that point it will have been over a week since drinking beer, so people are very excited about drinking it (it's more חביב - precious). The Biur Halacha (296:2 s.v. im hu chamar medina) learns from this Rama that any time one prefers chamar medina to wine, then they may make havdalah on it. He explains that when it comes to kiddush, there is a debate in the rishonim whether one can fulfill their obligation with chamar medina, and so we try to avoid it. However, everyone agrees that one can fulfill their obligation of havdalah with chamar medina, and so we are less hesitant to do so. </ref>

==== What if There's no Wine / Grape Juice? ====
#If there is no wine or grape juice available, then one can use chamar medina for havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 296:2</ref> What is chamar medina?{{Definition of Chamar Medina}}
===How Much to Drink===

# The one reciting havdalah should ideally drink a reviyit, in order to be able to recite a bracha achrona. After the fact, if they drank a melo lugmav, it is sufficient (and they just shouldn't make a bracha achrona). If someone drank only a tiny sip of the wine and not a melo lugmav, some say that they did not fulfill their obligation even after the fact,<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:9, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 60:36</ref> while others hold that one fulfilled the mitzvah but just not in the ideal way.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 190:4, Pri Megadim EA 271:24, Aruch Hashulchan 296:15, Kaf Hachaim 296:16, Or Letzion 2:20:7, Tzitz Eliezer 19:21:1, Yachava Daat 3:40, Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat 1-4, 5773 edition, 296:27), Piskei Teshuvot 296:11, and Rav Ben Tzion Felman in Moriya (257-259 p. 114) quoting Rav Aryeh Leib Shteinmann. Avnei Darech 9:40 rules that after the fact, if the one who made havdalah didn't drink the wine, those who heard it from him still fulfill their mitzvah, but if they want to be machmir to hear havdalah again from someone else then they can. He cites Migdanot Eliyahu 2:24 quoted Rashi, Raavan, and Baal Haitur that melo lugmav isn't maakev for havdalah. He quotes several other sources to this effect: Kaf Hachaim 296:15, Me'at Mayim 73, and Pekudat Eliezer 271 s.v. vtzarich li iyun.</ref>
# Those listening to the havdalah initially should not talk until after the one who recited havdalah drank melo lugmav. After the fact, if they talked after he drank a sip they fulfilled their obligation.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:257</ref>

=== Besamim ===
#What if there are no besamim?
##If someone doesn't have fragrant spices for besamim, one doesn't have to go out of his way to get them, and can recite havdalah without them.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:1, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 130. The gemara brachot 53b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of rav that one need not seek out a fire to make a bracha on motzei shabbat, in the way in which we typically try to seek out mitzvot. The Rosh 8:3 explains that this is because the bracha on fire is just a remembrance that fire was first created on motzei shabbat. He then says that all the more so one should not have to seek out besamim, since the whole point of besamim is just to restore the person's soul on motzei shabbat (להשבת נפשו). </ref>
##If one made havdalah without besamim, but gets them later on Motzei Shabbat, he can recite the bracha then.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:5 rules that the mitzvah of besamim is only on Motzei Shabbat. The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 adds that if it was omitted in havdalah it can be recited afterwards until Olot Hashachar based on the Eshel Avraham.</ref>
#What exactly is the nusach of the bracha?
##The Ashkenaz minhag is to make Boreh Minei Besamim (בורא מיני בשמים) - the generic bracha for fragrance - irrespective of what is actually being used for besamim at Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1 explains that we always just use this bracha since it can in theory be said on any spice, and we don't want the masses getting confused amongst all the possible variations of brachot on smells.</ref>
##According to Sephardim, one should make the appropriate bracha for that type of besamim.
###E.g. If it's a tree, then "boreh atzei besamim", and if it's a grass then "boreh isvei besamim".<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19) </ref>
#What type of spices should be used?
##There is a Sephardic practice to use hadasim when possible.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:4. Mishna Brurah 297:8 explains that this is referring to the hadas from the lulav that was used on sukkot, the idea being that since it was already used for a mitzvah, it's fitting to use it for other mitzvot as well. Rama notes that many times the hadas is too dried out to really smell like anything, and therefore it's best to just add it to a mix of other spices, but not to use the hadas exclusively.</ref>
##As mentioned above, Ashkenazim always make the bracha of "minei besamim", and so it is proper to use something which actually has that bracha, such as cloves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19), The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
##It is a nice thing to have a designated spice box of besamim for havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:10 cites from the Tur that Rabbeinu Efraim used to have a glass box filled with spices that he designated for this purpose. Even though one can in theory use any spice around the house for havdalah, the Mishna Brurah concludes that it's a mitzvah min hamuvchar (ideal practice) to designate spices for the mitzvah, and that this is indeed the common minhag in klal yisroel. </ref>
# Someone who can't smell should not recite the bracha on besamim, unless he is reciting havdalah for someone else who can smell.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:5, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
# If one isn't sure if the spice has a smell, one may smell it in advance without a bracha.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 132 citing Kaf Hachaim 216:3. He adds that this was the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein to smell the besamim before the havdalah to check if it smelled. </ref>
## If the spice container is old and in fact doesn't smell and one only realizes after the bracha, the bracha he recited is invalid and the hagefen was also interrupted. Therefore, he should recite another hagefen and a new besamim on another spice if it is available.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 133 </ref>

=== Fire ===
# What if one doesn't have fire?
## One need not go out of their way to try to find fire to say the bracha of "boreh me'orei ha'eish" on it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 298:1. Mishna Brurah 298:1 explains that the reason we say a bracha on fire on motzei shabbat is because the gemara in pesachim 54b relates that Hashem first showed Adam Harishon how to make fire on motzei shabbat, and so we make a bracha on it to commemorate this event. Since the only reason for this bracha is to commemorate this event, it is not critical to make it, and thus one need not burden themselves seeking out a fire on motzei shabbat. </ref>
## If one made havdala without fire, but gets fire later on motzei shabbat, he should make the bracha then.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:3</ref>
# Turning off the (electric) lights
##A person needs to be able to benefit from the fire in order to recite the bracha over it.<ref>The mishna brachot 51b states that one can't make the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat until he benefits from it. The gemara 53b cites a debate whether this is meant to be literal or not. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that one need not actually be close enough to the fire to benefit, but rather that it just needs to be a fire big enough that one could in theory benefit if he was close enough. Rava argues that the mishna is literal, and chizkiya explains that this means that one needs to be close enough to be able to distinguish between two different types of coins. The Beit Yosef cites a machloket rishonim regarding how to pasken. The Rashba paskens like rav yehudah (don't need to be close to the fire), but the Rif and Rosh just cite the mishna with no clarification, implying that it should be read literally like rava (need to be close enough to benefit). The Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:25 explicitly paskens like rava as explained by chizkiyah. The Maggid Mishna clarifies that even rava doesn't actually require one to benefit from the light. One need not literally use it to distinguish between two coins. Rather, one needs to be close enough such that if he had two coins in his hand, he could distinguish between them.</ref> Therefore, some turn off the electric lights when making Havdalah.<ref>Rivevot Efraim 2:115:32 citing Teshuvot Vehanhagot 6:90.</ref>
##However, others hold that the strict halacha doesn't require turning off the lights.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 2 p. 439, Yalkut Yosef 298:10 Shabbat v. 1 p. 477. See Dirshu Mishna Brurah 298 footnote 12, who cites that the practice of the Chazon Ish was to leave the electric lights on. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 49)] explains that one need not turn off the electric lights, since all that is required is that one be close enough to the fire to be able (in theory) to benefit from the light and see the difference between different coins (but one need not actually benefit from the fire, and thus the electric lights can remain on).</ref>
#Where to look?
##The minhag is to look at one's fingernails during the havdalah in order to indicate that one is getting benefit from the candle, to see the difference between one's nails and flesh.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 298:3, Zohar 2:208b:2</ref>
##One needs to stand close enough to the fire such that he could in theory benefit from it.
###Therefore, if one is in a big room, one should try to get closer to the fire.<ref>Mishna Brurah 298:13.</ref>
###If one can't get close, then they should have in mind not to be yotzeh the bracha on fire, and then get closer after havdala and make the bracha on the fire themselves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:13 (at the end)</ref>
#What kind of fire?
##Two wicks:
###It is preferable that one make the bracha on an "avuka" (lit: torch).<ref>The gemara pesachim 103b states that it is ideal to use an "avuka" for havdala. Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:26 cites this. Maggid Mishna explains that an "avuka" is a fire that has a lot of wood and a lot of flames. Shulchan Aruch 298:2 paskens this. Perhaps the idea is that a more substantive fire is more impressive and thus helps one better appreciate the chesed that Hashem did by showing Adam Harishon how to make fire. </ref>
###A candle that has two wicks (or two candles that one holds together such that their flames coalesce) is halachically equivalent to an avuka.<ref>Rama 298:2. Mishna Brurah 298:8 adds that if one takes two separate candles but just holds them together such that their flames touch, this is also considered an avuka.</ref>
##Electric light:
###Some poskim allow one to use an electric light in place of a havdala candle in a time of need.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6, Az Nidberu 8:2, Rivevot Ephraim 3:599. see also Mishpitei Uziel OC 1:9 </ref>
####In fact, it is reported that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky would always use an electric bulb for havdala in order to demonstrate how strongly he felt that electricity is to be treated exactly like fire from the perspective of halacha.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6. Sh"t Nachalat Shimon 15 says this was the practice of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik </ref>
####Even among the authorities who permit the use of electric lights if need be, many disqualify the use of fluorescent bulbs, as they work differently than standard light bulbs.<ref>Hachashmal L’or Hahalacha 3:88 </ref>
###Nevertheless, there are those authorities who discourage the use of an electric light for havdala.<ref>Har Tzvi 2:114, Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:39, Maharshag 2:107, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Raphael Baruch Toledano pg. 323. One argument they make is that the blessing recited upon the havdalah candle includes the word "fire", which seems to imply the need for actual fire, not merely light. </ref>
##Fire that "rested":
###One can't make havdala on a flame that was lit on shabbat by a Jew or nonJew.
###The flame need not have been lit on erev shabbat in order to make havdala on it (in contrast to Yom Kippur, which does have this extra requirement).

==Saying Havdalah Early==

#If one is has an extreme need such as a need to travel to the end of the [[Techum]] for the purpose of a mitzvah after [[Shabbat]] one may pray [[Arvit]] starting from Plag [[Mincha]] (ten and three quarter hours into the day). In such a case one may also say Havdalah early but one may not say the Bracha on the candle (Meorei HaEsh). Even in such a case it is certainly forbidden to do Melacha (activity which is forbidden on [[Shabbat]]) until [[Tzet HaKochavim]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 293:3 </ref>

==Until When Can One Say Havdalah?==

#If one forgot to say Havdalah on Motzei Shabbat one can say it until Tuesday.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 299:6. Even though Rav Ovadia in Yabia Omer 6:48:13 was concerned about Safek Brachot and wrote that one couldn't say it after Sunday in Yabia Omer 7:47 he retracted and followed Shulchan Aruch since the machloket is about the Mitzvah and not the bracha. Yalkut Yosef 299:7 writes that one who recites the bracha past Sunday isn't scorned, however, on the [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Motzei Shabbat (Matot Masei 5778 min 44-47)] shiur he seemed to support the last ruling of Rav Ovadia.</ref>

==Standing or Sitting for Havdalah==

#According to Sephardim, one should sit during Havdalah. However, the Ashkenazic minhag is to stand during [[Havadalah]].<ref>Tosfot 43a writes that to be included in [[Kiddish]] one should sit and then asks on those who stand during [[Havadalah]] because of the same issue. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch 296:6 rules that one should sit during Havdalah. However, Rama 296:6 and the Gra (Maaseh Rav pg 103, #150) write that the Ashkenazic practice is to stand for Havdalah. Mishna Brurah 296:27 explains that the reason for the Ashkenazic minhag is to escort the [[Shabbat]] queen out and escorting must be done standing. He adds that one can fulfill the obligation of others even when standing because everyone is assembled expressed for that purpose and has Kavana to fulfill their obligation. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuva Siman 3 quoted in back of Radiance of [[Shabbos]]) writes that his personal minhag was to sit like his father's minhag but because of the rishonim who hold that one may stand one should not change one's minhag. </ref>

==Doing Work before making Havdalah==

#Before one says Havdalah, one may not doing any Melacha. If one made Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one may do Melacha. If one needs to do Melacha before saying Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one should say "HaMavdil Ben Kodesh LeChol" (which is not a bracha) and then do Melacha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:10. Rav Schachter (Eretz HaTzvi p. 57) permits preparing the wine for Havdalah because [[Hachana]] isn’t considered a Melacha and may be done after [[Shabbat]] before Havdalah. </ref>
#One shouldn't say "Baruch hamavdil ben kodesh lechol" in a bathroom.<ref>Avnei Yishpeh 6:10:1 writes that one shouldn't say hamavdil ben kodesh lechol in a bathroom since it is doing a mitzvah and similar to divrei kedusha. Dor Hamelaktim v. 2 p. 1072 quotes this from Rav Chaim Kanievsky as well. However, it quotes Minchat Shabbat who permits it.</ref> If one needs to, one should say "Hamavdil ben kodesh lchol" without the word baruch.<ref>Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky (Kovetz Halachot Shabbat v. 1 p. 779)</ref>
# One may not eat until one made Havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:1</ref> This prohibition begins from after sunset even though it is halachically twilight.<ref>Magen Avraham 299:1, Mishna Brurah 299:1 unlike Taz 299:1 who allows eating during ben hashemashot.</ref>
#It is permissible to use a non-religious Jewish taxi driver on [[Motzei Shabbat]] even though the taxi-driver didn't make Havdalah.<ref>Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 12:37 writes that saying "Have a good week" does not fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah. Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 11:34 and 12:38 writes that there's no an issue of asking an non-religious Jew to do work for him after [[Shabbat]] since they aren't going to say Havdalah anyway, the prohibition not to do work before Havdalah doesn't set in. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=308 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] explains this ruling. See also [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735734/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Taking_a_Taxi_in_Israel_on_Motzai_Shabbos Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on yutorah.org].</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/839837/rabbi-shay-schachter/understanding-havdalah-on-motzai-shabbos/ Understanding Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos by Rabbi Shay Schachter]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/813392/rabbi-hershel-schachter/havdalah/ Havdalah] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Prayer]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Havdalah

2024-08-23T15:48:03Z

Gsilver2: /* Havdalah in Davening */

{{Okay}}
[[Image:Havdalah.jpg|200px|right]]
Havdalah is the ceremony of separation between every [[Shabbat]] and weekday, [[Yom Tov]] and weekday, or [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]]. Havdalah is said after Shabbat and Yom Tov during Shemone Esrei of maariv within the bracha of ata chonen, and when on Yom Tov, within the bracha of ata vchartanu. It is recited another time over a cup of wine.
==Obligation==

#There's a dispute whether the obligation to recite havdalah is of biblical or rabbinic nature. The obligation to recite havdalah over wine is certainly rabbinic.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that the command of "Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]" (Shemot 20:7) - to remember the Shabbat - includes the positive mitzvot of [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] and Havdalah every week, as these mitzvot serve to mark the beginning and end of shabbat and distinguish it from the rest of the week. Other Rishonim agree with Rambam, including Ravi’ah [[Brachot]] 3:1, Ritvah as quoted by the Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 55, and Sefer Hachinuch Mitvah 31. However, Tosfot (Tosfot Nazir 4a s.v. My Hee in name of Rabbenu Tam) and the Rosh (Sh"t 11:3) hold that only kiddush is deorayta, but havdalah is drabbanan. Mishna Brurah 296:1 quotes both opinions and adds that if one said havdalah in [[Tefillah]], then the havdalah on the wine is certainly drabbanan.</ref>
#Even though one says havdalah during davening at maariv (ata chonantanu), one must still recite havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>The gemara brachot 33a states that one who says havdalah during davening (as one is supposed to do), must still say havdalah over a cup of wine as well (המבדיל בתפילה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס). This is codified by Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:6, and Shulchan Aruch 294:1.</ref>

===Havdalah for Yom Tov===

#After [[Yom Tov]], which is followed by a regular weekday or a day of [[Chol HaMoed]], one should say Havdalah. However, if a [[Yom Tov]] is followed by a [[Shabbat]], there is no Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Chullin 26b, Gemara [[Shabbat]] 114b, Rambam [[Shabbat]] 5:21 and 29:18, Shulchan Aruch 491:1</ref>
#Havdalah at the end of [[Yom Tov]] only consists of the bracha of hamavdil, and there is no bracha of [[besamim]] or ner.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:1, Mishna Brurah 491:1</ref>

===When Motzei Shabbat is a Yom Tov===

#If motzei shabbat is yom tov, one may use the Yom Tov candles for havdalah.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6)</ref>
#It is preferable not to hold the two candles together.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6) based on Biur Halacha 514:2 s.v. veyechabeh. Yom Tov Sheni Khilchato ch. 1 fnt. 67 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted from Rav Efraim Greenblatt) as explaining that although generally we prefer to use a torch with two or more wicks for havdalah, on Yom Tov we avoid this. The reason is that on yom tov holding two candles together is likely going to come to an issue of extinguishing one of the candles more quickly. Even if they are touching it is permitted to detach them. Yet he also cites Rabbi Eider (Halachos of Shabbos 266 fnt. 34) who in the name of Rav Moshe permits putting them together. He concludes with a citation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 669 and YD 1 that even on a regular motzei Shabbat two candles next to one another is sufficient, yet we don't generally follow that opinion (Magen Avraham 298:4).</ref>

=== Who is Obligated? ===

==== Women ====
#There is a dispute as to whether women are obligated in havdalah.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that havdalah is a positive biblical mitzvah, just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]]. [[Maggid]] Mishna (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) understands from the Rambam that women are obligated in havdalah just like they are obligated in [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (since we compare "zachor" to "shamor"). [[Maggid]] Mishna suggests that even according to those who argue on the Rambam and hold that havdalah is only drabanan, women are still obligated, since presumably the rabbis instituted havdalah to be just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון). Beit Yosef cites from Rabbenu Yonah who agrees that women are obligated in havdala just like kiddush.

*However, Beit Yosef 296 cites from the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Havdalah 18) that women shouldn't make havdalah for themselves since perhaps they aren't obligated and it would be a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Brurah 296:34 explains that the reason why women wouldn't be obligated is if we view havdalah as a regular positive time-bound mitzvah, from which women are exempt. Even though havdala is connected to shabbat, since its actual performance takes place after shabbat, it is not viewed as fundamentally a "shabbat mitzvah" and hence not included in the hekesh of "zachor v'shamor". Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 296:8 rules as Stam (anonymous opinion) that women are obligated in Havdalah.</ref>
##According to Sephardim women may make havdalah for themselves.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27. </ref>
##Some Ashkenazim say that women should not recite [[havadalah]] for themselves, while others say that they may.<ref>The Rama 296:8 states that women shouldn't recite Havdalah for themselves, in order to be chosheish for the shita that perhaps they are not obligated in havdalah, and so saying it would constitute a bracha l'vatala. However, this is very difficult to understand. We know that in general the Ashkenazi shita is that women are allowed to make brachot on mitzvot in which they are not obligated (such as lulav or shofar), so why should havdalah be any different? Indeed, the Bach thinks this question is so strong that he rejects the Rama and concludes that women may recite havdalah lechatchila. </ref> Many say that preferably a woman should hear havdalah from a man to avoid questions of bracha l'vatala, but if she cannot find someone from whom to hear havdalah, then she should recite it for herself.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 agrees to the Bach. Mishna Brurah 296:35 concludes that a woman should not recite Havdalah for herself unless she can't find someone to hear Havdalah from. In 296:36 he writes that certainly a woman should recite it for herself if she can't find someone else to recite for her, or the only person available to say it for her already fulfilled his obligation (since for him to repeat havdalah for her would constitute a bracha l'vatala if she is, in fact, not obligated). See [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/740210/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Havdalah_for_Women audio shiur] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.</ref>
###When a women makes a havdala, she should certainly recite the brachot of hagefen and besamim.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 explains that since these two brachot are made over receiving enjoyment from something (ברכת הנהנין), and are not brachot for the mitzvah of havdala (ברכת המצוה), they may certainly be made by anyone. Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) cites this Magen Avraham approvingly.</ref>
###Most say that a woman can even recite the beracha on the fire.<ref>Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) discusses whether according to the opinion that women are obligated in havdalah, would they also be obligated in the bracha on the ner. Perhaps since this bracha was really established by chazal to commemorate the fact that fire was created on motzei shabbat, and is thus not intrinsically connected to havdalah (but is rather just said along with havdalah over the cup of wine), it is like any other positive time-bound mitzvah in which women are exempt. One proof that the bracha on the ner isn't really connected to havdalah inherently is the fact that if one doesn't have a fire one is not obligated to go find one, but can just say havdalah on the cup of wine without it (Shulchan Aruch 298:1). Another proof is that one may say the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat outside the context of havdala, whenever one finds a fire. He concludes that they probably are not obligated in the bracha of ner even if they are obligated in havdalah.

*Even though they are not obligated in the bracha of ner, and even though it is a birchat hamitzvah and not a birchat hanehenin, nonetheless one would think that it should be like any other bracha on a mitzvah, which ashkenazim hold that women may make. Indeed, Sh"t Iggerot Moshe CM 2:47:2, Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 14:43, Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27, all pasken this way. See also Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 296 footnote 34), which cites Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievskt, and the Shoneh Halachot as agreeing. </ref> Others disagree.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 58:16 </ref>

==== Children ====
#Once a child has reached the age of [[Chinuch]] (5 or 6), the parents should train him in hearing havdalah.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Dinei [[Chinuch]] Katan pg. 177 </ref>

==Havdalah in Tefilah==

#See the [[Atta Chonantanu]] page.
#If [[Motzei Shabbat]] is a [[Yom Tov]], in middle of Atta Bechartanu, one should insert VeTodiyanu in place of [[Atta Chonantanu]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:2, Mishna Brurah 491:4. see [[Atta_Chonantanu#VeTodienu | Vetodienu]] </ref>

==Havdalah in Shul==

#The chazan recites havdalah in shul on behalf of those who have no wine or who will not recite havdalah for themselves at home.<ref>Tur 295, Shulchan Aruch 295:1.</ref>
##Whoever wishes can listen to the chazan's havdalah in shul and fulfill his obligation, even though he is not holding a cup of wine.
###It is a widespread minhag in our times for the chazan to recite havdalah in shul, and there is no need to protest the custom. It should be made clear to the congregation, however, that everyone must recite Havdalah at home on behalf of his family members who have not heard it in the synagogue, even though he himself did hear it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 1 </ref>
##If one plans on saying havdalah at home for his family, then he should not have kavana to fulfill his obligation with the chazan.<ref>Mishna Brurah 295:6 explains that one who does have wine should not fulfill his obligation with the chazan, but rather should wait until he gets home, such that he will be able to say havdalah for his wife and kids. He refers one to the Shulchan Aruch 296:7, who writes that if one doesn't have kavana to be yotzeh havdalah in shul, then they aren't yotzeh and should say it at home. Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes that it's proper for every person to make havdalah at home for their family.

*Does one have to actively have kavana to NOT be yotzeh in shul, or does it suffice to simply not have active kavana to BE yotzeh? The Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes in the name of the Levush that nowadays since the common practice is that people recite havdalah again when they get home to their family, the default is that people do not have kavana to be yotzeh in shul. Therefore, one does not need to actively think to themselves during the chazan's recital of havdalah that they don't want to be yotzeh. Similarly, one who does want to be yotzeh with the chazan's havdalah, has to actively have in mind that they are fulfilling their obligation with his recital.

*If the husband does have kavana to fulfill his obligation in shul, then he may not recite havdalah for his wife and kids under the age of chinuch at home, since this might constitute a bracha l'vatala (see Mishna Brurah 296:36). In such a case, the wife, should say havdalah for herself. See above section on Women and Havdalah. </ref>
#The opinion of the Geonim is that whoever recites [[Kiddush]] or Havdalah must drink at least melo lugmav of the wine, and if he does not, then he has not fulfilled his obligation. A person should be strict for this opinion.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 271:13 paskens that one needs to drink a m'lo lugmav of the cup of kiddush, which he thinks is the majority of a reviit. The Mishna Brurah 296:9 cites from the Magen Avraham that the same applies to havdalah as well. </ref>
##Therefore the person who is chosen to recite Havdalah in the synagogue must be someone who will be able to drink melo lugmav. If the only person capable of reciting Havdalah is someone who cannot drink that much wine, then he should recite Havdalah, taste a sip of the wine, and then give it to another person who can drink melo lugmav. He should inform that person beforehand that he should have in mind when listening to the blessing of boreh peri hagefen that he will drink from the cup afterward.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 3 </ref>
#If someone is not sure whether or not he will have wine available at home for havdalah, he should listen to the chazan recite havdalah in shul, but stipulate in his mind that he wishes to fulfill his obligation only if he has no wine at home. Then, if he finds that there is wine available at home, he may recite havdalah for himself in accordance with the condition he made.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 4 </ref>

==Havdalah on a Cup of Wine==

=== The Order of Havdalah ===
#The order of the [[Brachot]] of Havdalah is Yayin (Hagefen), [[Besamim]], Ner (Meorei HaEsh), Havdalah (Hamavdil).<ref>The Mishna Brachot 51b cites a debate between beit shamai and beit hillel with respect to the proper order of the four brachot associated with havdalah (hagafen on the wine, besamim on the incense, me'orei ha'eish on the fire, and havdalah itself). The gemara 52a cites a beraita in which Rebbe Yehudah explains the position of beit hillel as follows: yayin, besamim, ner, havdalah. The gemara explains that the reason why havdalah comes last is because we want to delay the leaving of shabbat as much as possible. Shulchan Aruch 296:1 paskens like this. </ref>
#The custom is to add several pesukim prior to Havdalah for a good sign. For the full Ashkenazic text see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.aish.com%2Fmisc%2Fhavdallah.pdf here]. For the full Sephardic text see [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/zmirot/motsaey-2.htm here].<ref>*The Ashkenazic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי לי לישועה: ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה: ליהוה הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה: יהוה צבאות עמנו משגב לנו אלהי יעקב סלה: יהוה צבאות אשרי אדם בטח בך: יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר, כן תהיה לנו: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם יהוה אקרא:
*The source for the Ashkenazic text is the following: the Rama 296:1 writes that before the Bracha of Havdalah one should say Yishaya 12:2-3, Ester 8:16, Tehillim 116:13. The Aruch HaShulchan 296:8 adds 4 more pesukim after the ones in Yishaya from Tehillim 3:9, 46:8, 84:13, and 20:10. He also adds that after Ester 8:16 one should say 'כן תהיה לנו'.
*The Sephardic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה' אקרא: אנא ה' הושיעה נא אנא ה' הצליחה נא: הצליחנו הצליח דרכינו הצליח לימודינו וכו' ושלח ברכה רוחה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידינו כדכתיב ישא ברכה מאת ה' וצדקה מאלהי ישענו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששק ויקר: וכתיב ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו, כן יהיה עמנו תמיד: ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', כן נמצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלוקים ואדם: אלהא דמאיר עננו: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום:
*The source for the Sephardic text is the following: Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 449-50) writes that the Sephardic minhag is to say the following order before Havdalah: Tehillim 116:13, 118:25, a [[prayer]] beginning with הצליחנו and ending with a Tehillim 24:5, Ester 8:16, Shmuel 1:18:14, Beresheet 6:8, a [[prayer]] beginning with אלהא דמאיר, and Devarim 4:4.</ref>
#If the cup of havdalah falls and spills out completely they should get a new cup of wine and recite a new hagefen. If they already got involved in another activity (hesech hadaat) they need to recite havdalah again.<ref>Piskei Teshuvot 296:11</ref>

=== Wine vs Other Beverages ===
#If one has wine, wine has precedence over any other drink.<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:8, citing the Ohr Zaruah.</ref>
##Red wine is preferable, but white wine is permissible if only white wine is available.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 82 </ref>
##One may use grape juice for havdalah.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 408 writes that grape juice is practically like wine and is thus more preferable than chamar medina; Chazon Ovadia v. 1 p. 99 writes that grape juice is fit for kiddush and havdalah based on the Gemara Bava Batra 97a. He ends that even though it is pasteurized it is still like wine for all intents and purposes since it tastes like non-fermented wine (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 272:3). This is also in Yalkut Yosef 202 fnt. 8. Listen to [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 36)] who seems to contradict this as he says that grape juice is unfit for havdalah.</ref>
##One may not use bread for havdalah, even though one may use it for kiddush Friday night.<ref>Tur 296 citing Rav Amram Gaon. Beit Yosef explains that the Friday night kiddush is connected to the meal and so it's reasonable that bread would be a valid substitute for kiddush. But havdalah on motzei shabbat is not connected to any seudah and therefore one may not make havdalah on bread. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 296:2. </ref>
#However, if one prefers chamar medina (see below section), then they may make havdalah on it, even if they have wine available.<ref>The Rama 296:2 writes that the minhag is to make havdalah on motzei pesach on beer since at that point it will have been over a week since drinking beer, so people are very excited about drinking it (it's more חביב - precious). The Biur Halacha (296:2 s.v. im hu chamar medina) learns from this Rama that any time one prefers chamar medina to wine, then they may make havdalah on it. He explains that when it comes to kiddush, there is a debate in the rishonim whether one can fulfill their obligation with chamar medina, and so we try to avoid it. However, everyone agrees that one can fulfill their obligation of havdalah with chamar medina, and so we are less hesitant to do so. </ref>

==== What if There's no Wine / Grape Juice? ====
#If there is no wine or grape juice available, then one can use chamar medina for havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 296:2</ref> What is chamar medina?{{Definition of Chamar Medina}}
===How Much to Drink===

# The one reciting havdalah should ideally drink a reviyit, in order to be able to recite a bracha achrona. After the fact, if they drank a melo lugmav, it is sufficient (and they just shouldn't make a bracha achrona). If someone drank only a tiny sip of the wine and not a melo lugmav, some say that they did not fulfill their obligation even after the fact,<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:9, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 60:36</ref> while others hold that one fulfilled the mitzvah but just not in the ideal way.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 190:4, Pri Megadim EA 271:24, Aruch Hashulchan 296:15, Kaf Hachaim 296:16, Or Letzion 2:20:7, Tzitz Eliezer 19:21:1, Yachava Daat 3:40, Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat 1-4, 5773 edition, 296:27), Piskei Teshuvot 296:11, and Rav Ben Tzion Felman in Moriya (257-259 p. 114) quoting Rav Aryeh Leib Shteinmann. Avnei Darech 9:40 rules that after the fact, if the one who made havdalah didn't drink the wine, those who heard it from him still fulfill their mitzvah, but if they want to be machmir to hear havdalah again from someone else then they can. He cites Migdanot Eliyahu 2:24 quoted Rashi, Raavan, and Baal Haitur that melo lugmav isn't maakev for havdalah. He quotes several other sources to this effect: Kaf Hachaim 296:15, Me'at Mayim 73, and Pekudat Eliezer 271 s.v. vtzarich li iyun.</ref>
# Those listening to the havdalah initially should not talk until after the one who recited havdalah drank melo lugmav. After the fact, if they talked after he drank a sip they fulfilled their obligation.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:257</ref>

=== Besamim ===
#What if there are no besamim?
##If someone doesn't have fragrant spices for besamim, one doesn't have to go out of his way to get them, and can recite havdalah without them.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:1, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 130. The gemara brachot 53b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of rav that one need not seek out a fire to make a bracha on motzei shabbat, in the way in which we typically try to seek out mitzvot. The Rosh 8:3 explains that this is because the bracha on fire is just a remembrance that fire was first created on motzei shabbat. He then says that all the more so one should not have to seek out besamim, since the whole point of besamim is just to restore the person's soul on motzei shabbat (להשבת נפשו). </ref>
##If someone made havdalah without besamim, but gets them later on Motzei Shabbat, he can recite the bracha then.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:5 rules that the mitzvah of besamim is only on Motzei Shabbat. The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 adds that if it was omitted in havdalah it can be recited afterwards until Olot Hashachar based on the Eshel Avraham.</ref>
#What exactly is the nusach of the bracha?
##The Ashkenaz minhag is to make Boreh Minei Besamim (בורא מיני בשמים), which is the general Bracha for nice smells, no matter what’s being used for besamim at Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1 explains that we always just use this bracha since it can in theory be said on any spice, and we don't want the masses getting confused amongst all the possible variations of brachot on smells.</ref>
##According to Sephardim, one should make the appropriate bracha for that type of besamim. If it's a tree, then "boreh atzei besamim", and if it's a grass then "boreh isvei besamim".<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19) </ref>
#What type of spices should be used?
##There is a Sephardic practice to use hadasim when possible.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:4. Mishna Brurah 297:8 explains that this is referring to the hadas from the lulav that was used on sukkot, the idea being that since it was already used for a mitzvah, it's fitting to use it for other mitzvot as well. Rama adds that many times the hadas is too dried out to really smell like anything, and therefore it's best to just add it to a mix of other spices, but not to use the hadas exclusively.</ref>
##As mentioned above, Ashkenazim always make the bracha of "minei besamim", and so it is proper to use something which actually has that bracha, such as cloves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19), The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
##It is a nice thing to have a designated spice box of besamim for havdalah.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:10 cites from the Tur that Rabbeinu Efraim used to have a glass box filled with spices that he designated for this purpose. Even though one can in theory use any spice around the house for havdalah, the Mishna Brurah concludes that it's a mitzvah min hamuvchar (ideal practice) to designate spices for the mitzvah, and that this is indeed the common minhag in klal yisroel. </ref>
# Someone who can't smell should not recite the bracha on besamim, unless he is reciting havdalah for someone else who can smell.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:5, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
# If one isn't sure if the spice has a smell, one may smell it in advance without a bracha.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 132 citing Kaf Hachaim 216:3. He adds that this was the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein to smell the besamim before the havdalah to check if it smelled. </ref> If the spice container is old and in fact doesn't smell and one only realizes after the bracha, the bracha he recited is invalid and the hagefen was also interrupted. Therefore, he should recite another hagefen and a new besamim on another spice if it is available.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 133 </ref>

=== Fire ===
# The minhag is to look at one's fingernails during the havdalah in order to indicate that one is getting benefit from the candle to see the difference between one's nails and flesh.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 298:3, Zohar 2:208b:2</ref>
#A person needs to be able to benefit from the fire in order to recite the bracha over it. Therefore, some turn off the electric lights when making Havdalah,<ref>Rivevot Efraim 2:115:32 citing Teshuvot Vehanhagot 6:90</ref> but others hold that the strict halacha doesn't require turning off the lights.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 2 p. 439, Yalkut Yosef 298:10 Shabbat v. 1 p. 477. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 49)] said that the strict halacha doesn't require a person to turn off the electric lights since if all that is required is that if the lights were to be off it would be possible to benefit from the candle and see the difference between coins which is possible from a distance.</ref>
#Some poskim allow one to use an electric light in place of a Havdala candle in a time of need.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6, Az Nidberu 8:2, Rivevot Ephraim 3:599. see also Mishpitei Uziel OC 1:9 </ref> In fact, it is reported that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky would always use an electric bulb for Havdala in order to demonstrate how strongly he felt that electricity is to be treated exactly like fire from the perspective of halacha.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6. Sh"t Nachalat Shimon 15 says this was the practice of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik </ref>
#Nevertheless, there are those authorities who discourage the use of an electric light for Havdala. Among their opposition to is the fact that the blessing recited upon the Havdalah candle includes the word "fire" which seems to imply the need for actual fire, not merely light. As such a light bulb would not be acceptable according to this view.<ref>Har Tzvi 2:114, Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:39, Maharshag 2:107, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Raphael Baruch Toledano pg. 323 </ref> Even among the authorities who permit the use of electric lighting when needed many would disqualify the use of fluorescent bulbs as they work differently than standard light bulbs.<ref>Hachashmal L’or Hahalacha 3:88 </ref>

==Saying Havdalah Early==

#If one is has an extreme need such as a need to travel to the end of the [[Techum]] for the purpose of a mitzvah after [[Shabbat]] one may pray [[Arvit]] starting from Plag [[Mincha]] (ten and three quarter hours into the day). In such a case one may also say Havdalah early but one may not say the Bracha on the candle (Meorei HaEsh). Even in such a case it is certainly forbidden to do Melacha (activity which is forbidden on [[Shabbat]]) until [[Tzet HaKochavim]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 293:3 </ref>

==Until When Can One Say Havdalah?==

#If one forgot to say Havdalah on Motzei Shabbat one can say it until Tuesday.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 299:6. Even though Rav Ovadia in Yabia Omer 6:48:13 was concerned about Safek Brachot and wrote that one couldn't say it after Sunday in Yabia Omer 7:47 he retracted and followed Shulchan Aruch since the machloket is about the Mitzvah and not the bracha. Yalkut Yosef 299:7 writes that one who recites the bracha past Sunday isn't scorned, however, on the [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Motzei Shabbat (Matot Masei 5778 min 44-47)] shiur he seemed to support the last ruling of Rav Ovadia.</ref>

==Standing or Sitting for Havdalah==

#According to Sephardim, one should sit during Havdalah. However, the Ashkenazic minhag is to stand during [[Havadalah]].<ref>Tosfot 43a writes that to be included in [[Kiddish]] one should sit and then asks on those who stand during [[Havadalah]] because of the same issue. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch 296:6 rules that one should sit during Havdalah. However, Rama 296:6 and the Gra (Maaseh Rav pg 103, #150) write that the Ashkenazic practice is to stand for Havdalah. Mishna Brurah 296:27 explains that the reason for the Ashkenazic minhag is to escort the [[Shabbat]] queen out and escorting must be done standing. He adds that one can fulfill the obligation of others even when standing because everyone is assembled expressed for that purpose and has Kavana to fulfill their obligation. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuva Siman 3 quoted in back of Radiance of [[Shabbos]]) writes that his personal minhag was to sit like his father's minhag but because of the rishonim who hold that one may stand one should not change one's minhag. </ref>

==Doing Work before making Havdalah==

#Before one says Havdalah, one may not doing any Melacha. If one made Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one may do Melacha. If one needs to do Melacha before saying Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one should say "HaMavdil Ben Kodesh LeChol" (which is not a bracha) and then do Melacha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:10. Rav Schachter (Eretz HaTzvi p. 57) permits preparing the wine for Havdalah because [[Hachana]] isn’t considered a Melacha and may be done after [[Shabbat]] before Havdalah. </ref>
#One shouldn't say "Baruch hamavdil ben kodesh lechol" in a bathroom.<ref>Avnei Yishpeh 6:10:1 writes that one shouldn't say hamavdil ben kodesh lechol in a bathroom since it is doing a mitzvah and similar to divrei kedusha. Dor Hamelaktim v. 2 p. 1072 quotes this from Rav Chaim Kanievsky as well. However, it quotes Minchat Shabbat who permits it.</ref> If one needs to, one should say "Hamavdil ben kodesh lchol" without the word baruch.<ref>Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky (Kovetz Halachot Shabbat v. 1 p. 779)</ref>
# One may not eat until one made Havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:1</ref> This prohibition begins from after sunset even though it is halachically twilight.<ref>Magen Avraham 299:1, Mishna Brurah 299:1 unlike Taz 299:1 who allows eating during ben hashemashot.</ref>
#It is permissible to use a non-religious Jewish taxi driver on [[Motzei Shabbat]] even though the taxi-driver didn't make Havdalah.<ref>Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 12:37 writes that saying "Have a good week" does not fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah. Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 11:34 and 12:38 writes that there's no an issue of asking an non-religious Jew to do work for him after [[Shabbat]] since they aren't going to say Havdalah anyway, the prohibition not to do work before Havdalah doesn't set in. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=308 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] explains this ruling. See also [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735734/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Taking_a_Taxi_in_Israel_on_Motzai_Shabbos Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on yutorah.org].</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/839837/rabbi-shay-schachter/understanding-havdalah-on-motzai-shabbos/ Understanding Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos by Rabbi Shay Schachter]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/813392/rabbi-hershel-schachter/havdalah/ Havdalah] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Prayer]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Havdalah

2024-08-23T15:23:12Z

Gsilver2: /* Who is Obligated? */

{{Okay}}
[[Image:Havdalah.jpg|200px|right]]
Havdalah is the ceremony of separation between every [[Shabbat]] and weekday, [[Yom Tov]] and weekday, or [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]]. Havdalah is said after Shabbat and Yom Tov during Shemone Esrei of maariv within the bracha of ata chonen, and when on Yom Tov, within the bracha of ata vchartanu. It is recited another time over a cup of wine.
==Obligation==

#There's a dispute whether the obligation to recite havdalah is of biblical or rabbinic nature. The obligation to recite havdalah over wine is certainly rabbinic.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that the command of "Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]" (Shemot 20:7) - to remember the Shabbat - includes the positive mitzvot of [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] and Havdalah every week, as these mitzvot serve to mark the beginning and end of shabbat and distinguish it from the rest of the week. Other Rishonim agree with Rambam, including Ravi’ah [[Brachot]] 3:1, Ritvah as quoted by the Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 55, and Sefer Hachinuch Mitvah 31. However, Tosfot (Tosfot Nazir 4a s.v. My Hee in name of Rabbenu Tam) and the Rosh (Sh"t 11:3) hold that only kiddush is deorayta, but havdalah is drabbanan. Mishna Brurah 296:1 quotes both opinions and adds that if one said havdalah in [[Tefillah]], then the havdalah on the wine is certainly drabbanan.</ref>
#Even though one says havdalah during davening at maariv (ata chonantanu), one must still recite havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>The gemara brachot 33a states that one who says havdalah during davening (as one is supposed to do), must still say havdalah over a cup of wine as well (המבדיל בתפילה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס). This is codified by Rambam hilchot shabbat 29:6, and Shulchan Aruch 294:1.</ref>

===Havdalah for Yom Tov===

#After [[Yom Tov]], which is followed by a regular weekday or a day of [[Chol HaMoed]], one should say Havdalah. However, if a [[Yom Tov]] is followed by a [[Shabbat]], there is no Havdalah.<ref>Mishna Chullin 26b, Gemara [[Shabbat]] 114b, Rambam [[Shabbat]] 5:21 and 29:18, Shulchan Aruch 491:1</ref>
#Havdalah at the end of [[Yom Tov]] only consists of the bracha of hamavdil, and there is no bracha of [[besamim]] or ner.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:1, Mishna Brurah 491:1</ref>

===When Motzei Shabbat is a Yom Tov===

#If motzei shabbat is yom tov, one may use the Yom Tov candles for havdalah.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6)</ref>
#It is preferable not to hold the two candles together.<ref>Or Letzion (v. 3, 18:6) based on Biur Halacha 514:2 s.v. veyechabeh. Yom Tov Sheni Khilchato ch. 1 fnt. 67 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted from Rav Efraim Greenblatt) as explaining that although generally we prefer to use a torch with two or more wicks for havdalah, on Yom Tov we avoid this. The reason is that on yom tov holding two candles together is likely going to come to an issue of extinguishing one of the candles more quickly. Even if they are touching it is permitted to detach them. Yet he also cites Rabbi Eider (Halachos of Shabbos 266 fnt. 34) who in the name of Rav Moshe permits putting them together. He concludes with a citation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 669 and YD 1 that even on a regular motzei Shabbat two candles next to one another is sufficient, yet we don't generally follow that opinion (Magen Avraham 298:4).</ref>

=== Who is Obligated? ===

==== Women ====
#There is a dispute as to whether women are obligated in havdalah.<ref>Rambam (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) writes that havdalah is a positive biblical mitzvah, just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]]. [[Maggid]] Mishna (Hilchot [[Shabbat]] 29:1) understands from the Rambam that women are obligated in havdalah just like they are obligated in [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (since we compare "zachor" to "shamor"). [[Maggid]] Mishna suggests that even according to those who argue on the Rambam and hold that havdalah is only drabanan, women are still obligated, since presumably the rabbis instituted havdalah to be just like [[Kiddish|Kiddush]] (כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון). Beit Yosef cites from Rabbenu Yonah who agrees that women are obligated in havdala just like kiddush.

*However, Beit Yosef 296 cites from the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Havdalah 18) that women shouldn't make havdalah for themselves since perhaps they aren't obligated and it would be a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Brurah 296:34 explains that the reason why women wouldn't be obligated is if we view havdalah as a regular positive time-bound mitzvah, from which women are exempt. Even though havdala is connected to shabbat, since its actual performance takes place after shabbat, it is not viewed as fundamentally a "shabbat mitzvah" and hence not included in the hekesh of "zachor v'shamor". Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 296:8 rules as Stam (anonymous opinion) that women are obligated in Havdalah.</ref>
##According to Sephardim women may make havdalah for themselves.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27. </ref>
##Some Ashkenazim say that women should not recite [[havadalah]] for themselves, while others say that they may.<ref>The Rama 296:8 states that women shouldn't recite Havdalah for themselves, in order to be chosheish for the shita that perhaps they are not obligated in havdalah, and so saying it would constitute a bracha l'vatala. However, this is very difficult to understand. We know that in general the Ashkenazi shita is that women are allowed to make brachot on mitzvot in which they are not obligated (such as lulav or shofar), so why should havdalah be any different? Indeed, the Bach thinks this question is so strong that he rejects the Rama and concludes that women may recite havdalah lechatchila. </ref> Many say that preferably a woman should hear havdalah from a man to avoid questions of bracha l'vatala, but if she cannot find someone from whom to hear havdalah, then she should recite it for herself.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 agrees to the Bach. Mishna Brurah 296:35 concludes that a woman should not recite Havdalah for herself unless she can't find someone to hear Havdalah from. In 296:36 he writes that certainly a woman should recite it for herself if she can't find someone else to recite for her, or the only person available to say it for her already fulfilled his obligation (since for him to repeat havdalah for her would constitute a bracha l'vatala if she is, in fact, not obligated). See [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/740210/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Havdalah_for_Women audio shiur] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz.</ref>
###When a women makes a havdala, she should certainly recite the brachot of hagefen and besamim.<ref>Magen Avraham 296:11 explains that since these two brachot are made over receiving enjoyment from something (ברכת הנהנין), and are not brachot for the mitzvah of havdala (ברכת המצוה), they may certainly be made by anyone. Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) cites this Magen Avraham approvingly.</ref>
###Most say that a woman can even recite the beracha on the fire.<ref>Biur Halacha (296:8 s.v. lo) discusses whether according to the opinion that women are obligated in havdalah, would they also be obligated in the bracha on the ner. Perhaps since this bracha was really established by chazal to commemorate the fact that fire was created on motzei shabbat, and is thus not intrinsically connected to havdalah (but is rather just said along with havdalah over the cup of wine), it is like any other positive time-bound mitzvah in which women are exempt. One proof that the bracha on the ner isn't really connected to havdalah inherently is the fact that if one doesn't have a fire one is not obligated to go find one, but can just say havdalah on the cup of wine without it (Shulchan Aruch 298:1). Another proof is that one may say the bracha on fire on motzei shabbat outside the context of havdala, whenever one finds a fire. He concludes that they probably are not obligated in the bracha of ner even if they are obligated in havdalah.

*Even though they are not obligated in the bracha of ner, and even though it is a birchat hamitzvah and not a birchat hanehenin, nonetheless one would think that it should be like any other bracha on a mitzvah, which ashkenazim hold that women may make. Indeed, Sh"t Iggerot Moshe CM 2:47:2, Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 14:43, Sh"t Yechave Daat 4:27, all pasken this way. See also Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 296 footnote 34), which cites Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievskt, and the Shoneh Halachot as agreeing. </ref> Others disagree.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 58:16 </ref>

==== Children ====
#Once a child has reached the age of [[Chinuch]] (5 or 6), the parents should train him in hearing havdalah.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Dinei [[Chinuch]] Katan pg. 177 </ref>

==Havdalah in Davening==

#See the [[Atta Chonantanu]] page.
#If [[Motzei Shabbat]] is a [[Yom Tov]], in middle of Atta Bechartanu, one should insert VeTodiyanu in place of [[Atta Chonantanu]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 491:2, Mishna Brurah 491:4. see [[Atta_Chonantanu#VeTodienu | Vetodienu]] </ref>

==Havdalah in Shul==

#The chazan recites havdalah in shul on behalf of those who have no wine or who will not recite havdalah for themselves at home.<ref>Tur 295, Shulchan Aruch 295:1.</ref>
##Whoever wishes can listen to the chazan's havdalah in shul and fulfill his obligation, even though he is not holding a cup of wine.
###It is a widespread minhag in our times for the chazan to recite havdalah in shul, and there is no need to protest the custom. It should be made clear to the congregation, however, that everyone must recite Havdalah at home on behalf of his family members who have not heard it in the synagogue, even though he himself did hear it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 1 </ref>
##If one plans on saying havdalah at home for his family, then he should not have kavana to fulfill his obligation with the chazan.<ref>Mishna Brurah 295:6 explains that one who does have wine should not fulfill his obligation with the chazan, but rather should wait until he gets home, such that he will be able to say havdalah for his wife and kids. He refers one to the Shulchan Aruch 296:7, who writes that if one doesn't have kavana to be yotzeh havdalah in shul, then they aren't yotzeh and should say it at home. Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes that it's proper for every person to make havdalah at home for their family.

*Does one have to actively have kavana to NOT be yotzeh in shul, or does it suffice to simply not have active kavana to BE yotzeh? The Mishna Brurah 296:33 writes in the name of the Levush that nowadays since the common practice is that people recite havdalah again when they get home to their family, the default is that people do not have kavana to be yotzeh in shul. Therefore, one does not need to actively think to themselves during the chazan's recital of havdalah that they don't want to be yotzeh. Similarly, one who does want to be yotzeh with the chazan's havdalah, has to actively have in mind that they are fulfilling their obligation with his recital.

*If the husband does have kavana to fulfill his obligation in shul, then he may not recite havdalah for his wife and kids under the age of chinuch at home, since this might constitute a bracha l'vatala (see Mishna Brurah 296:36). In such a case, the wife, should say havdalah for herself. See above section on Women and Havdalah. </ref>
#The opinion of the Geonim is that whoever recites [[Kiddush]] or Havdalah must drink at least melo lugmav of the wine, and if he does not, then he has not fulfilled his obligation. A person should be strict for this opinion.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 271:13 paskens that one needs to drink a m'lo lugmav of the cup of kiddush, which he thinks is the majority of a reviit. The Mishna Brurah 296:9 cites from the Magen Avraham that the same applies to havdalah as well. </ref>
##Therefore the person who is chosen to recite Havdalah in the synagogue must be someone who will be able to drink melo lugmav. If the only person capable of reciting Havdalah is someone who cannot drink that much wine, then he should recite Havdalah, taste a sip of the wine, and then give it to another person who can drink melo lugmav. He should inform that person beforehand that he should have in mind when listening to the blessing of boreh peri hagefen that he will drink from the cup afterward.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 3 </ref>
#If someone is not sure whether or not he will have wine available at home for havdalah, he should listen to the chazan recite havdalah in shul, but stipulate in his mind that he wishes to fulfill his obligation only if he has no wine at home. Then, if he finds that there is wine available at home, he may recite havdalah for himself in accordance with the condition he made.<ref>Yalkut Yosef, Siman 295, Halacha 4 </ref>

==Havdalah on a Cup of Wine==

=== The Order of Havdalah ===
#The order of the [[Brachot]] of Havdalah is Yayin (Hagefen), [[Besamim]], Ner (Meorei HaEsh), Havdalah (Hamavdil).<ref>The Mishna Brachot 51b cites a debate between beit shamai and beit hillel with respect to the proper order of the four brachot associated with havdalah (hagafen on the wine, besamim on the incense, me'orei ha'eish on the fire, and havdalah itself). The gemara 52a cites a beraita in which Rebbe Yehudah explains the position of beit hillel as follows: yayin, besamim, ner, havdalah. The gemara explains that the reason why havdalah comes last is because we want to delay the leaving of shabbat as much as possible. Shulchan Aruch 296:1 paskens like this. </ref>
#The custom is to add several pesukim prior to Havdalah for a good sign. For the full Ashkenazic text see [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.aish.com%2Fmisc%2Fhavdallah.pdf here]. For the full Sephardic text see [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/zmirot/motsaey-2.htm here].<ref>*The Ashkenazic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי לי לישועה: ושאבתם מים בששון ממעיני הישועה: ליהוה הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה: יהוה צבאות עמנו משגב לנו אלהי יעקב סלה: יהוה צבאות אשרי אדם בטח בך: יהוה הושיעה המלך יעננו ביום קראנו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששן ויקר, כן תהיה לנו: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם יהוה אקרא:
*The source for the Ashkenazic text is the following: the Rama 296:1 writes that before the Bracha of Havdalah one should say Yishaya 12:2-3, Ester 8:16, Tehillim 116:13. The Aruch HaShulchan 296:8 adds 4 more pesukim after the ones in Yishaya from Tehillim 3:9, 46:8, 84:13, and 20:10. He also adds that after Ester 8:16 one should say 'כן תהיה לנו'.
*The Sephardic custom is to say the following text before Havdalah: כוס ישועות אשא ובשם ה' אקרא: אנא ה' הושיעה נא אנא ה' הצליחה נא: הצליחנו הצליח דרכינו הצליח לימודינו וכו' ושלח ברכה רוחה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידינו כדכתיב ישא ברכה מאת ה' וצדקה מאלהי ישענו: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששק ויקר: וכתיב ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו, כן יהיה עמנו תמיד: ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', כן נמצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלוקים ואדם: אלהא דמאיר עננו: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום:
*The source for the Sephardic text is the following: Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 449-50) writes that the Sephardic minhag is to say the following order before Havdalah: Tehillim 116:13, 118:25, a [[prayer]] beginning with הצליחנו and ending with a Tehillim 24:5, Ester 8:16, Shmuel 1:18:14, Beresheet 6:8, a [[prayer]] beginning with אלהא דמאיר, and Devarim 4:4.</ref>
#If the cup of havdalah falls and spills out completely they should get a new cup of wine and recite a new hagefen. If they already got involved in another activity (hesech hadaat) they need to recite havdalah again.<ref>Piskei Teshuvot 296:11</ref>

=== Wine vs Other Beverages ===
#If one has wine, wine has precedence over any other drink.<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:8, citing the Ohr Zaruah.</ref>
##Red wine is preferable, but white wine is permissible if only white wine is available.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 82 </ref>
##One may use grape juice for havdalah.<ref> Chazon Ovadia, Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2, Page 408 writes that grape juice is practically like wine and is thus more preferable than chamar medina; Chazon Ovadia v. 1 p. 99 writes that grape juice is fit for kiddush and havdalah based on the Gemara Bava Batra 97a. He ends that even though it is pasteurized it is still like wine for all intents and purposes since it tastes like non-fermented wine (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 272:3). This is also in Yalkut Yosef 202 fnt. 8. Listen to [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 36)] who seems to contradict this as he says that grape juice is unfit for havdalah.</ref>
##One may not use bread for havdalah, even though one may use it for kiddush Friday night.<ref>Tur 296 citing Rav Amram Gaon. Beit Yosef explains that the Friday night kiddush is connected to the meal and so it's reasonable that bread would be a valid substitute for kiddush. But havdalah on motzei shabbat is not connected to any seudah and therefore one may not make havdalah on bread. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 296:2. </ref>
#However, if one prefers chamar medina (see below section), then they may make havdalah on it, even if they have wine available.<ref>The Rama 296:2 writes that the minhag is to make havdalah on motzei pesach on beer since at that point it will have been over a week since drinking beer, so people are very excited about drinking it (it's more חביב - precious). The Biur Halacha (296:2 s.v. im hu chamar medina) learns from this Rama that any time one prefers chamar medina to wine, then they may make havdalah on it. He explains that when it comes to kiddush, there is a debate in the rishonim whether one can fulfill their obligation with chamar medina, and so we try to avoid it. However, everyone agrees that one can fulfill their obligation of havdalah with chamar medina, and so we are less hesitant to do so. </ref>

==== What if There's no Wine / Grape Juice? ====
#If there is no wine or grape juice available, then one can use chamar medina for havdalah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 296:2</ref> What is chamar medina?{{Definition of Chamar Medina}}
===How Much to Drink===

# The one reciting havdalah should ideally drink a reviyit, in order to be able to recite a bracha achrona. After the fact, if they drank a melo lugmav, it is sufficient (and they just shouldn't make a bracha achrona). If someone drank only a tiny sip of the wine and not a melo lugmav, some say that they did not fulfill their obligation even after the fact,<ref>Mishna Brurah 296:9, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 60:36</ref> while others hold that one fulfilled the mitzvah but just not in the ideal way.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Harav 190:4, Pri Megadim EA 271:24, Aruch Hashulchan 296:15, Kaf Hachaim 296:16, Or Letzion 2:20:7, Tzitz Eliezer 19:21:1, Yachava Daat 3:40, Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat 1-4, 5773 edition, 296:27), Piskei Teshuvot 296:11, and Rav Ben Tzion Felman in Moriya (257-259 p. 114) quoting Rav Aryeh Leib Shteinmann. Avnei Darech 9:40 rules that after the fact, if the one who made havdalah didn't drink the wine, those who heard it from him still fulfill their mitzvah, but if they want to be machmir to hear havdalah again from someone else then they can. He cites Migdanot Eliyahu 2:24 quoted Rashi, Raavan, and Baal Haitur that melo lugmav isn't maakev for havdalah. He quotes several other sources to this effect: Kaf Hachaim 296:15, Me'at Mayim 73, and Pekudat Eliezer 271 s.v. vtzarich li iyun.</ref>
# Those listening to the havdalah initially should not talk until after the one who recited havdalah drank melo lugmav. After the fact, if they talked after he drank a sip they fulfilled their obligation.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:257</ref>

==Besamim==
See [[Besamim]]
#The Ashkenaz minhag is to make Boreh Minei Besamim (בורא מיני בשמים) which is the general Bracha for nice smells at Havdalah no matter what’s being used for besamim. Ideally, one should use a besamim spice that is indeed minei besamim, such as cloves.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19), The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
#According to Sephardim, one should make the appropriate Bracha for that besamim.<ref>Mishna Brurah 297:1, Vezot HaBracha (pg 181, chapter 19) </ref> There is a Sephardic practice to use hadasim when possible.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:4</ref>
# Someone who can't smell should not recite Besamim unless he is fulfilling the obligation of someone who can smell.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:5, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 </ref>
# If someone doesn't have fragrant spices for besamim one doesn't have to go out of his way to get them and can recite havdalah without them.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 297:1, The Radiance of Shabbos p. 130</ref>
# If someone made havdalah without spices and gets spices later on Motzei Shabbat he can recite the bracha of besamim on them at that point.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:5 rules that the mitzvah of besamim is only on Motzei Shabbat. The Radiance of Shabbos p. 131 adds that if it was omitted in havdalah it can be recited afterwards until Olot Hashachar based on the Eshel Avraham.</ref>
# If one isn't sure if the spice has a smell may smell it in advance without a bracha.<ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 132 citing Kaf Hachaim 216:3. He adds that this was the practice of Rav Moshe Feinstein to smell the besamim before the havdalah to check if it smelled. </ref> If the spice container is old and in fact doesn't smell and one only realizes after the bracha, the bracha he recited is invalid and the hagefen was also interrupted. Therefore, he should recite another hagefen and a new besamim on another spice if it is available.<Ref>The Radiance of Shabbos p. 133 </ref>

==Fire==
# The minhag is to look at one's fingernails during the havdalah in order to indicate that one is getting benefit from the candle to see the difference between one's nails and flesh.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 298:3, Zohar 2:208b:2</ref>
#A person needs to be able to benefit from the fire in order to recite the bracha over it. Therefore, some turn off the electric lights when making Havdalah,<ref>Rivevot Efraim 2:115:32 citing Teshuvot Vehanhagot 6:90</ref> but others hold that the strict halacha doesn't require turning off the lights.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 2 p. 439, Yalkut Yosef 298:10 Shabbat v. 1 p. 477. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Matot Masei 5778 min 49)] said that the strict halacha doesn't require a person to turn off the electric lights since if all that is required is that if the lights were to be off it would be possible to benefit from the candle and see the difference between coins which is possible from a distance.</ref>
#Some poskim allow one to use an electric light in place of a Havdala candle in a time of need.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6, Az Nidberu 8:2, Rivevot Ephraim 3:599. see also Mishpitei Uziel OC 1:9 </ref> In fact, it is reported that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky would always use an electric bulb for Havdala in order to demonstrate how strongly he felt that electricity is to be treated exactly like fire from the perspective of halacha.<ref>Shaarim Metzuyanim Behalachah 96:6. Sh"t Nachalat Shimon 15 says this was the practice of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik </ref>
#Nevertheless, there are those authorities who discourage the use of an electric light for Havdala. Among their opposition to is the fact that the blessing recited upon the Havdalah candle includes the word "fire" which seems to imply the need for actual fire, not merely light. As such a light bulb would not be acceptable according to this view.<ref>Har Tzvi 2:114, Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:39, Maharshag 2:107, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Raphael Baruch Toledano pg. 323 </ref> Even among the authorities who permit the use of electric lighting when needed many would disqualify the use of fluorescent bulbs as they work differently than standard light bulbs.<ref>Hachashmal L’or Hahalacha 3:88 </ref>

==Saying Havdalah Early==

#If one is has an extreme need such as a need to travel to the end of the [[Techum]] for the purpose of a mitzvah after [[Shabbat]] one may pray [[Arvit]] starting from Plag [[Mincha]] (ten and three quarter hours into the day). In such a case one may also say Havdalah early but one may not say the Bracha on the candle (Meorei HaEsh). Even in such a case it is certainly forbidden to do Melacha (activity which is forbidden on [[Shabbat]]) until [[Tzet HaKochavim]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 293:3 </ref>

==Until When Can One Say Havdalah?==

#If one forgot to say Havdalah on Motzei Shabbat one can say it until Tuesday.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 299:6. Even though Rav Ovadia in Yabia Omer 6:48:13 was concerned about Safek Brachot and wrote that one couldn't say it after Sunday in Yabia Omer 7:47 he retracted and followed Shulchan Aruch since the machloket is about the Mitzvah and not the bracha. Yalkut Yosef 299:7 writes that one who recites the bracha past Sunday isn't scorned, however, on the [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=64191 Motzei Shabbat (Matot Masei 5778 min 44-47)] shiur he seemed to support the last ruling of Rav Ovadia.</ref>

==Standing or Sitting for Havdalah==

#According to Sephardim, one should sit during Havdalah. However, the Ashkenazic minhag is to stand during [[Havadalah]].<ref>Tosfot 43a writes that to be included in [[Kiddish]] one should sit and then asks on those who stand during [[Havadalah]] because of the same issue. Therefore, Shulchan Aruch 296:6 rules that one should sit during Havdalah. However, Rama 296:6 and the Gra (Maaseh Rav pg 103, #150) write that the Ashkenazic practice is to stand for Havdalah. Mishna Brurah 296:27 explains that the reason for the Ashkenazic minhag is to escort the [[Shabbat]] queen out and escorting must be done standing. He adds that one can fulfill the obligation of others even when standing because everyone is assembled expressed for that purpose and has Kavana to fulfill their obligation. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuva Siman 3 quoted in back of Radiance of [[Shabbos]]) writes that his personal minhag was to sit like his father's minhag but because of the rishonim who hold that one may stand one should not change one's minhag. </ref>

==Doing Work before making Havdalah==

#Before one says Havdalah, one may not doing any Melacha. If one made Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one may do Melacha. If one needs to do Melacha before saying Havdalah in [[Tefillah]], one should say "HaMavdil Ben Kodesh LeChol" (which is not a bracha) and then do Melacha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 299:10. Rav Schachter (Eretz HaTzvi p. 57) permits preparing the wine for Havdalah because [[Hachana]] isn’t considered a Melacha and may be done after [[Shabbat]] before Havdalah. </ref>
#One shouldn't say "Baruch hamavdil ben kodesh lechol" in a bathroom.<ref>Avnei Yishpeh 6:10:1 writes that one shouldn't say hamavdil ben kodesh lechol in a bathroom since it is doing a mitzvah and similar to divrei kedusha. Dor Hamelaktim v. 2 p. 1072 quotes this from Rav Chaim Kanievsky as well. However, it quotes Minchat Shabbat who permits it.</ref> If one needs to, one should say "Hamavdil ben kodesh lchol" without the word baruch.<ref>Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky (Kovetz Halachot Shabbat v. 1 p. 779)</ref>
# One may not eat until one made Havdalah over a cup of wine.<ref>Mishna Brurah 299:1</ref> This prohibition begins from after sunset even though it is halachically twilight.<ref>Magen Avraham 299:1, Mishna Brurah 299:1 unlike Taz 299:1 who allows eating during ben hashemashot.</ref>
#It is permissible to use a non-religious Jewish taxi driver on [[Motzei Shabbat]] even though the taxi-driver didn't make Havdalah.<ref>Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 12:37 writes that saying "Have a good week" does not fulfill the mitzvah of Havdalah. Sh"t Tzitz Eliezer 11:34 and 12:38 writes that there's no an issue of asking an non-religious Jew to do work for him after [[Shabbat]] since they aren't going to say Havdalah anyway, the prohibition not to do work before Havdalah doesn't set in. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=308 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] explains this ruling. See also [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735734/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Taking_a_Taxi_in_Israel_on_Motzai_Shabbos Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on yutorah.org].</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/839837/rabbi-shay-schachter/understanding-havdalah-on-motzai-shabbos/ Understanding Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos by Rabbi Shay Schachter]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/813392/rabbi-hershel-schachter/havdalah/ Havdalah] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Prayer]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Havdalah

2024-08-23T14:54:15Z

Gsilver2: /* Wine or other drinks */

Havdalah

2024-08-23T13:50:05Z

Gsilver2: /* Havdalah in Shul */

Havdalah

2024-08-23T13:34:58Z

Gsilver2:

Speech on Shabbat

2024-08-23T12:06:31Z

Gsilver2: /* Visiting the Sick */

[[File:Speech on shabbat.png|thumb]]

==Speaking about Melacha==
# On [[Shabbat]], it is forbidden to say that one is going to do a melacha after [[Shabbat]].<ref> *The gemara shabbat 113a-b learns from the pasuk in yeshaya "ודבר דבר" (lit: "and speaking speech") that one's speech on shabbat should be different than during the week. What exactly does this mean? Rashi there says that it's referring to not speaking about business matters. Tosfot argue that this is already included in the other phrase of the pasuk in yeshaya - "ממצוא חפציך" (lit: and seeking your interests) - and therefore interpret it to mean not speaking too much on shabbat in general (even speech which is otherwise permitted).
*The gemara shabbat 150b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of shmuel that one is allowed to say to his friend on shabbat "I am going to such-and-such place tomorrow", even though that place is outside of his techum, since he could in theory go there today if there were huts spaced every 70 amot along the way (שאם יש בורגנין הולך). What shmuel is essentially stating here is that if one in theory has the possibility of doing something permissibly on shabbat, even if that possibility doesn't exist at the current moment, one is allowed to speak about it. The continuation of the gemara makes it clear, though, that if something is prohibited to do on shabbat, even if only rabbinically, and there would be no possibility of doing it permissibly, then one may not speak about it on shabbat. The Rosh 23:6 makes this point. The Tur siman 307 connects the two sugyot and suggests that the reason why one may not speak about melacha on shabbat is due to ודבר דבר (even though that isn't how Rashi or Tosfot understood the gemara on daf 113). The Shulchan Aruch 307:1,8 paskens this way.</ref>
## For example, one shouldn’t say “After [[Shabbat]], ... I’m going to drive a car”, “I’m going to write a letter”, or “I’m going to buy a certain item”,<Ref>Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 377) </ref> “I will fix the refrigerator door next week”, “I will wallpaper the room”.<ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 103) </ref>
## One may not plan specific details for a family vacation (that involve melacha) such as which hotel or airline to book online.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 105) </ref>
# One may speak about another prohibition other than prohibited melacha. For example, on [[Yom Kippur]] one may speak about eating after [[Yom Kippur]].<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:61 </ref>

===Not Explicitly Mentioning Melacha===
# One may say “I will go to a certain place tomorrow”, even if it is outside the techum or if one plans on driving, as long as he doesn’t mention how he will travel.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:8, Mishna Brurah 307:30, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 184), 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 105). Since you aren't explicitly mentioning the melacha, but rather just that you are "going" to a particular place, this is ok because you would be able to walk there (and even if it's outside the techum, you would be able to walk there if there were huts - בורגנין - placed along the way every 70 amot to extend the techum). </ref>

===Hinting===
# One may hint that one’s friend, or a non-Jew, should pick one up (in a car) after [[Shabbat]], even if it’s not a mitzvah need.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## For example one may ask whether another person is available to come after [[Shabbat]], or telling them that he’d be happy if they were able to come after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:52. The Shulchan Aruch 307:7 (based on the gemara 150a) writes that one may not hire someone on shabbat for after [[Shabbat]], but one would be allowed to ask “do you think you would be available for me tonight?”. The reason is that in this latter case, you aren't actually explicitly stating the melacha that will take place, and thus this can be considered "הרהור" and not "דיבור". </ref>

===Speaking to Oneself===
# Anything that one may not say to another on shabbat, one may also not say to oneself.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 172). See Rama 307:8 and Mishna Brurah 307:36. </ref>

===For a Mitzvah===
# There is a debate whether one may speak about doing melacha after shabbat if it is for the purposes of a mitzvah.
## Some<ref>Magen Avraham, cited in sha'ar hatziyon 307:3</ref> hold that even for the purpose of a mitzvah, one should refrain from speaking about a melacha.
### Therefore one shouldn’t say “Tomorrow I’m going to write a Sefer Torah”, unless there is a fear that one will become lazy regarding the project, in which case it’s permissible to speak about in order to motivate oneself.<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:1 </ref>
## Others are lenient in any event.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 57. See also Mishna Brurah 307:1 who cites from the Elya Raba, the ma'amar mordechai, and the birkei yosef, who hold that for the purposes of "dvar mitzvah" (lit: fulfilling a mitzva), one is allowed to speak about melacha. Presumably they all hold that since the prohibition is based on ודבר דבר, and there is a heter for ממצוא חפציך if it's for the purpose of a mitzvah (see gemara 150a which states the principle that חפצי שמים מותרים), this applies to the prohibition of ודבר דבר as well. </ref>
### One may discuss plans for a fundraiser for a Shul or Torah institution, as this effort is a Mitzvah.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106) </ref>
### One may not say “Pick me up with your car tonight (after [[Shabbat]])”, unless it is for a mitzvah reason.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
### One may speak for the purposes of a need for the community if that speech is necessary on [[Shabbat]].
#### For example, one may speak about the issues of a community to the government on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:59 </ref>
### One may discuss financial aspects of a Shidduch (match) if it is necessary for the fruition of the Shidduch. However, specific details, as well as the actual agreement, must wait until after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6, 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106). See also Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 who says that a shadchan may suggest a shidduch on Shabbat, but not fix a price to collect for making the match. Furthermore, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata seems to be strict not to speak about the financial aspects related to the shidduch itself or the obligations of each side. </ref>
### A father may look for a teacher to teach his son a trade, and even pledge a salary to him, as long as one doesn’t fix a price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6 writes that on [[Shabbat]] one may involve oneself in hiring a teacher for one’s son to teach him a trade, because this involvement is a mitzvah. However, one may not fix the price with the teacher. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 concurs. Biur Halacha s.v. VeLeLamdo expresses that it’s crucial to also teach one’s son Torah before finding him a profession. Otherwise, one's child could come to severe violations of the law in one’s profession and a breach of the religion (Chas VeShalom). </ref>

==Other Types of Speech==

=== Business Speech ===
# One may not discuss or plan business agreements, transactions, deals, or strategies on [[Shabbat]].<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1 pg 103-4) </ref>
# It is prohibited to forgive a loan on shabbat. However, it is permissible to forgive a loan for a poor person, because it is considered tzedaka.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 23; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 114 </ref>
# Thinking about business on [[Shabbat]] is permissible. However, there’s a mitzvah of Oneg [[Shabbat]] not to think about that on [[Shabbat]], and all the more so one shouldn’t become distracted and worried about business matters.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:8, Mishna Brurah 306:38 </ref>

=== Making Calculations ===
# One may not speak about calculations of the price for something which one has not yet paid. If one has already paid, then it is permitted to speak about, as there is no real point to that calculation.
## Nonetheless, a G-d fearing person should refrain (in general) from speaking about calculations for no purpose, as this is just a waste of time.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:27, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 180-1). </ref>
# However, if one is speaking to someone who is thinking (planning) to buy it, it is forbidden to speak about the price. For example, one may say “I spent $30,000 on my son’s wedding”, but they would not be able to tell this to someone making a wedding in the near future and is looking for guidance.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:26, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 2 pg 180). </ref>

=== Mundane Speech ===
# One shouldn’t greet one’s friend the same way as does during the week (e.g. “good morning”, “hello”, “hi”), but rather “good [[Shabbos]]” (or “[[Shabbat]] Shalom”).<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:5 in name of the Shlah explains that through this greeting, one fulfills the mitzvah of Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]. </ref>
# Mundane speech, which doesn’t include (1) a plan to do a melacha, (2) business speech, (3) degrading speech or (4) frivolity, may be spoken on [[Shabbat]]. Nonetheless, one should not speak too much of this type of speech.<ref>As mentioned in a prior footnote, the gemara 113b states that one's speech on shabbat should be different than during the week. Tosfot there, based on the yerushalmi and midrash rabah, interpret this to mean that one should limit their mundane speech (שיחת חולין) on shabbat. The yerushalmi that tosfot quotes states that it was with difficulty that the rabbis permitted greetings on shabbat, seemingly implying that all forms of speech should be limited on shabbat. Shulchan Aruch 307:1 cites this l'halacha.</ref> Moreover, the righteous practice is to avoid this type of speech on [[Shabbat]].<ref> Mishna Brurah 307:5, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:64 </ref>
## For example, describing one’s trip or summer camp experience, or saying how much one spent on a dress, car, or wedding is permitted. However, one should try to limit such speech.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 104) </ref>
## Some say that if speaking about such things gives one pleasure, then one may speak about it on shabbat. Nonetheless, it should still be limited if possible.<ref>Rama 307:1. The Mishna Brurah 307:4 says that even in such a case, one should try to limit how much of this type of speech they engage in, since shabbat is primarily meant to focus on more spiritual pursuits such as learning Torah, especially for those who work during the week and don't have as much time to learn then. </ref>
### If speaking about such things gives the other person pleasure, but not the speaker himself, it should be avoided (unless, perhaps, if the speaker gets pleasure out of giving pleasure to the listener).<ref>Rama 307:1. The Mishna Brurah 307:6 suggests that perhaps if the speaker gets pleasure out of giving the listener pleasure, then the speaker is allowed to speak about these things. Even though the speaker doesn't get pleasure from the actual speech itself, but only from the result of giving the listener pleasure, ultimately they are still getting pleasure due to the speech, and so it functionally equivalent. </ref>

=== Distressful Speech ===
# One shouldn’t speak about something which causes a person sadness or agony or distress.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Mishna Brurah 307:3. </ref>
## Therefore, one shouldn't relate bad news which causes aggravation.<ref> Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 378) </ref>
## One should not mention a loved-one who passed away or is in pain.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58. </ref>
===Releasing a Vow===
# A person may not be released from a vow (Hatarat Nedarim) on [[Shabbat]] unless it’s needed for a mitzvah on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 341:1, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:58 </ref> See [[Nedarim_on_Shabbat]].
==Permitted Business-type Speech==

=== Charity ===
# For [[charity]] purposes, it is permitted to make calculations (orally).<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# The minhag is to permit those who are called up for an Aliyah (reading of the Torah) to donate money to [[charity]], and even mention the amount they are donating.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# In some places, the practice is to “sell” the honors of performing the מצות in Shul on [[Shabbat]]. If there is an alternative, it is preferable not to record the sums of the amounts donated, even using cards or slips of papers indicating those amounts. However, those who do so have what to rely on. The same applies to an appeal in Shul for a [[charity]]. It is the practice to hand congregants a card bearing his name in order to donate to the [[charity]] by folding down a tab or attaching a paperclip.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 </ref>

=== Lost Object Announcement ===
# It’s permissible to announce a lost object on [[Shabbat]] or to ask who knows about a lost object, because this involves the mitzvah of [[Hashavat Aviedah]].<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:12, Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58, Mishna Brurah 306:48 </ref>

==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Speech on Shabbat

2024-08-23T12:06:02Z

Gsilver2: /* Planning for Tomorrow */

[[File:Speech on shabbat.png|thumb]]

==Speaking about Melacha==
# On [[Shabbat]], it is forbidden to say that one is going to do a melacha after [[Shabbat]].<ref> *The gemara shabbat 113a-b learns from the pasuk in yeshaya "ודבר דבר" (lit: "and speaking speech") that one's speech on shabbat should be different than during the week. What exactly does this mean? Rashi there says that it's referring to not speaking about business matters. Tosfot argue that this is already included in the other phrase of the pasuk in yeshaya - "ממצוא חפציך" (lit: and seeking your interests) - and therefore interpret it to mean not speaking too much on shabbat in general (even speech which is otherwise permitted).
*The gemara shabbat 150b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of shmuel that one is allowed to say to his friend on shabbat "I am going to such-and-such place tomorrow", even though that place is outside of his techum, since he could in theory go there today if there were huts spaced every 70 amot along the way (שאם יש בורגנין הולך). What shmuel is essentially stating here is that if one in theory has the possibility of doing something permissibly on shabbat, even if that possibility doesn't exist at the current moment, one is allowed to speak about it. The continuation of the gemara makes it clear, though, that if something is prohibited to do on shabbat, even if only rabbinically, and there would be no possibility of doing it permissibly, then one may not speak about it on shabbat. The Rosh 23:6 makes this point. The Tur siman 307 connects the two sugyot and suggests that the reason why one may not speak about melacha on shabbat is due to ודבר דבר (even though that isn't how Rashi or Tosfot understood the gemara on daf 113). The Shulchan Aruch 307:1,8 paskens this way.</ref>
## For example, one shouldn’t say “After [[Shabbat]], ... I’m going to drive a car”, “I’m going to write a letter”, or “I’m going to buy a certain item”,<Ref>Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 377) </ref> “I will fix the refrigerator door next week”, “I will wallpaper the room”.<ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 103) </ref>
## One may not plan specific details for a family vacation (that involve melacha) such as which hotel or airline to book online.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 105) </ref>
# One may speak about another prohibition other than prohibited melacha. For example, on [[Yom Kippur]] one may speak about eating after [[Yom Kippur]].<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:61 </ref>

===Not Explicitly Mentioning Melacha===
# One may say “I will go to a certain place tomorrow”, even if it is outside the techum or if one plans on driving, as long as he doesn’t mention how he will travel.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:8, Mishna Brurah 307:30, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 184), 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 105). Since you aren't explicitly mentioning the melacha, but rather just that you are "going" to a particular place, this is ok because you would be able to walk there (and even if it's outside the techum, you would be able to walk there if there were huts - בורגנין - placed along the way every 70 amot to extend the techum). </ref>

===Hinting===
# One may hint that one’s friend, or a non-Jew, should pick one up (in a car) after [[Shabbat]], even if it’s not a mitzvah need.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## For example one may ask whether another person is available to come after [[Shabbat]], or telling them that he’d be happy if they were able to come after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:52. The Shulchan Aruch 307:7 (based on the gemara 150a) writes that one may not hire someone on shabbat for after [[Shabbat]], but one would be allowed to ask “do you think you would be available for me tonight?”. The reason is that in this latter case, you aren't actually explicitly stating the melacha that will take place, and thus this can be considered "הרהור" and not "דיבור". </ref>

===Speaking to Oneself===
# Anything that one may not say to another on shabbat, one may also not say to oneself.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 172). See Rama 307:8 and Mishna Brurah 307:36. </ref>

===For a Mitzvah===
# There is a debate whether one may speak about doing melacha after shabbat if it is for the purposes of a mitzvah.
## Some<ref>Magen Avraham, cited in sha'ar hatziyon 307:3</ref> hold that even for the purpose of a mitzvah, one should refrain from speaking about a melacha.
### Therefore one shouldn’t say “Tomorrow I’m going to write a Sefer Torah”, unless there is a fear that one will become lazy regarding the project, in which case it’s permissible to speak about in order to motivate oneself.<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:1 </ref>
## Others are lenient in any event.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 57. See also Mishna Brurah 307:1 who cites from the Elya Raba, the ma'amar mordechai, and the birkei yosef, who hold that for the purposes of "dvar mitzvah" (lit: fulfilling a mitzva), one is allowed to speak about melacha. Presumably they all hold that since the prohibition is based on ודבר דבר, and there is a heter for ממצוא חפציך if it's for the purpose of a mitzvah (see gemara 150a which states the principle that חפצי שמים מותרים), this applies to the prohibition of ודבר דבר as well. </ref>
### One may discuss plans for a fundraiser for a Shul or Torah institution, as this effort is a Mitzvah.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106) </ref>
### One may not say “Pick me up with your car tonight (after [[Shabbat]])”, unless it is for a mitzvah reason.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
### One may speak for the purposes of a need for the community if that speech is necessary on [[Shabbat]].
#### For example, one may speak about the issues of a community to the government on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:59 </ref>
### One may discuss financial aspects of a Shidduch (match) if it is necessary for the fruition of the Shidduch. However, specific details, as well as the actual agreement, must wait until after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6, 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106). See also Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 who says that a shadchan may suggest a shidduch on Shabbat, but not fix a price to collect for making the match. Furthermore, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata seems to be strict not to speak about the financial aspects related to the shidduch itself or the obligations of each side. </ref>
### A father may look for a teacher to teach his son a trade, and even pledge a salary to him, as long as one doesn’t fix a price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6 writes that on [[Shabbat]] one may involve oneself in hiring a teacher for one’s son to teach him a trade, because this involvement is a mitzvah. However, one may not fix the price with the teacher. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 concurs. Biur Halacha s.v. VeLeLamdo expresses that it’s crucial to also teach one’s son Torah before finding him a profession. Otherwise, one's child could come to severe violations of the law in one’s profession and a breach of the religion (Chas VeShalom). </ref>

==Other Types of Speech==

=== Business Speech ===
# One may not discuss or plan business agreements, transactions, deals, or strategies on [[Shabbat]].<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1 pg 103-4) </ref>
# It is prohibited to forgive a loan on shabbat. However, it is permissible to forgive a loan for a poor person, because it is considered tzedaka.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 23; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 114 </ref>
# Thinking about business on [[Shabbat]] is permissible. However, there’s a mitzvah of Oneg [[Shabbat]] not to think about that on [[Shabbat]], and all the more so one shouldn’t become distracted and worried about business matters.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:8, Mishna Brurah 306:38 </ref>

=== Making Calculations ===
# One may not speak about calculations of the price for something which one has not yet paid. If one has already paid, then it is permitted to speak about, as there is no real point to that calculation.
## Nonetheless, a G-d fearing person should refrain (in general) from speaking about calculations for no purpose, as this is just a waste of time.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:27, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 180-1). </ref>
# However, if one is speaking to someone who is thinking (planning) to buy it, it is forbidden to speak about the price. For example, one may say “I spent $30,000 on my son’s wedding”, but they would not be able to tell this to someone making a wedding in the near future and is looking for guidance.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:26, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 2 pg 180). </ref>

=== Mundane Speech ===
# One shouldn’t greet one’s friend the same way as does during the week (e.g. “good morning”, “hello”, “hi”), but rather “good [[Shabbos]]” (or “[[Shabbat]] Shalom”).<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:5 in name of the Shlah explains that through this greeting, one fulfills the mitzvah of Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]. </ref>
# Mundane speech, which doesn’t include (1) a plan to do a melacha, (2) business speech, (3) degrading speech or (4) frivolity, may be spoken on [[Shabbat]]. Nonetheless, one should not speak too much of this type of speech.<ref>As mentioned in a prior footnote, the gemara 113b states that one's speech on shabbat should be different than during the week. Tosfot there, based on the yerushalmi and midrash rabah, interpret this to mean that one should limit their mundane speech (שיחת חולין) on shabbat. The yerushalmi that tosfot quotes states that it was with difficulty that the rabbis permitted greetings on shabbat, seemingly implying that all forms of speech should be limited on shabbat. Shulchan Aruch 307:1 cites this l'halacha.</ref> Moreover, the righteous practice is to avoid this type of speech on [[Shabbat]].<ref> Mishna Brurah 307:5, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:64 </ref>
## For example, describing one’s trip or summer camp experience, or saying how much one spent on a dress, car, or wedding is permitted. However, one should try to limit such speech.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 104) </ref>
## Some say that if speaking about such things gives one pleasure, then one may speak about it on shabbat. Nonetheless, it should still be limited if possible.<ref>Rama 307:1. The Mishna Brurah 307:4 says that even in such a case, one should try to limit how much of this type of speech they engage in, since shabbat is primarily meant to focus on more spiritual pursuits such as learning Torah, especially for those who work during the week and don't have as much time to learn then. </ref>
### If speaking about such things gives the other person pleasure, but not the speaker himself, it should be avoided (unless, perhaps, if the speaker gets pleasure out of giving pleasure to the listener).<ref>Rama 307:1. The Mishna Brurah 307:6 suggests that perhaps if the speaker gets pleasure out of giving the listener pleasure, then the speaker is allowed to speak about these things. Even though the speaker doesn't get pleasure from the actual speech itself, but only from the result of giving the listener pleasure, ultimately they are still getting pleasure due to the speech, and so it functionally equivalent. </ref>

=== Distressful Speech ===
# One shouldn’t speak about something which causes a person sadness or agony or distress.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Mishna Brurah 307:3. </ref>
## Therefore, one shouldn't relate bad news which causes aggravation.<ref> Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 378) </ref>
## One should not mention a loved-one who passed away or is in pain.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58. </ref>
===Releasing a Vow===
# A person may not be released from a vow (Hatarat Nedarim) on [[Shabbat]] unless it’s needed for a mitzvah on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 341:1, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:58 </ref> See [[Nedarim_on_Shabbat]]
===Visiting the Sick===
see [[Visiting the Sick]]

==Permitted Business-type Speech==

=== Charity ===
# For [[charity]] purposes, it is permitted to make calculations (orally).<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# The minhag is to permit those who are called up for an Aliyah (reading of the Torah) to donate money to [[charity]], and even mention the amount they are donating.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# In some places, the practice is to “sell” the honors of performing the מצות in Shul on [[Shabbat]]. If there is an alternative, it is preferable not to record the sums of the amounts donated, even using cards or slips of papers indicating those amounts. However, those who do so have what to rely on. The same applies to an appeal in Shul for a [[charity]]. It is the practice to hand congregants a card bearing his name in order to donate to the [[charity]] by folding down a tab or attaching a paperclip.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 </ref>

=== Lost Object Announcement ===
# It’s permissible to announce a lost object on [[Shabbat]] or to ask who knows about a lost object, because this involves the mitzvah of [[Hashavat Aviedah]].<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:12, Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58, Mishna Brurah 306:48 </ref>

==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Speech on Shabbat

2024-08-23T03:21:00Z

Gsilver2:

[[File:Speech on shabbat.png|thumb]]

==Planning for Tomorrow==
# On [[Shabbat]], it is forbidden to say that one is going to do a melacha after [[Shabbat]].<ref>The gemara shabbat 113a-b learns from the pasuk in yeshaya "ודבר דבר" (lit: "and speaking speech") that one's speech on shabbat should be different than during the week. What exactly does this mean? Rashi there says that it's referring to not speaking about business matters. Tosfot argue that this is already included in the other phrase of the pasuk in yeshaya - "ממצוא חפציך" (lit: and seeking your interests) - and therefore interpret it to mean not speaking too much on shabbat in general (even speech which is otherwise permitted).

*The gemara shabbat 150b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of shmuel that one is allowed to say to his friend on shabbat "I am going to such-and-such place tomorrow", even though that place is outside of his techum, since he could in theory go there today if there were huts spaced every 70 amot along the way (שאם יש בורגנין הולך). What shmuel is essentially stating here is that if one in theory has the possibility of doing something permissibly on shabbat, even if that possibility doesn't exist at the current moment, one is allowed to speak about it. The continuation of the gemara makes it clear, though, that if something is prohibited to do on shabbat, even if only rabbinically, and there would be no possibility of doing it permissibly, then one may not speak about it on shabbat. The Rosh 23:6 makes this point. The Tur siman 307 connects the two sugyot and suggests that the reason why one may not speak about melacha on shabbat is due to ודבר דבר (even though that isn't how Rashi or Tosfot understood the gemara on daf 113). The Shulchan Aruch 307:1,8 paskens this way. </ref>
## For example, one shouldn’t say “After [[Shabbat]], ... I’m going to drive a car”, “I’m going to write a letter”, or “I’m going to buy a certain item”,<Ref>Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 377) </ref> “I will fix the refrigerator door next week”, “I will wallpaper the room after [[Shabbat]]”.<ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 103) </ref>
## One may not plan specific details for a family vacation such as which hotel or airline to book.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 105) </ref>
# One may speak about another prohibition other than prohibited melacha. For example, on [[Yom Kippur]] one may speak about eating after [[Yom Kippur]].<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:61 </ref>

===Not Explicit===
# One may say “I will go to a certain place tomorrow”, even if it is outside the techum or if one plans on driving, as long as he doesn’t mention how he will travel.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:8, Mishna Brurah 307:30, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 184), 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 105). Since you aren't explicitly mentioning the melacha, but rather just that you are "going" to a particular place, this is ok because you would be able to walk there (and even if it's outside the techum, you would be able to walk there if there were בורגנין). </ref>

===Hinting===
# One may hint that one’s friend, or a non-Jew, should pick one up (in a car) after [[Shabbat]], even if it’s not a mitzvah need.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## For example one may ask whether another person is available to come after [[Shabbat]], or telling them that he’d be happy if they were able to come after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:52. The Shulchan Aruch 307:7 (based on the gemara 150a) writes that one may not hire someone on shabbat for after [[Shabbat]], but one would be allowed to ask “do you think you would be available for me tonight?”. The reason is that in this latter case, you aren't actually explicitly stating the melacha that will take place, and thus this can be considered "הרהור" and not "דיבור". </ref>

===To Oneself===
# Anything that one may not say to another on shabbat, one may also not say to oneself.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 172). See Rama 307:8 and Mishna Brurah 307:36. </ref>

===For a Mitzvah===
# Even for the purpose of a mitzvah, one should refrain from speaking about a Melacha. Therefore one shouldn’t say “Tomorrow I’m going to write a Sefer Torah”, unless there is a fear that one will become lazy regarding the project, in which case it’s permissible to speak about in order to motivate oneself.<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:1 </ref> Others are lenient in any event.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 57. See also Mishna Brurah 307:1 who cites from the Elya Raba, the ma'amar mordechai, and the birkei yosef, who hold that for the purposes of "dvar mitzvah" (lit: fulfilling a mitzva), one is allowed to speak about melacha. Presumably they all hold that since the prohibition is based on ודבר דבר, and there is a heter for ממצוא חפציך if it's for the purpose of a mitzvah (see gemara 150a which states the principle that חפצי שמים מותרים), this applies to the prohibition of ודבר דבר as well. </ref>
## One may discuss plans for a fundraiser for a Shul or Torah institution, as this effort is a Mitzvah.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106) </ref>
## One may not say “Pick me up with your car tonight (after [[Shabbat]])”, unless it is for a mitzvah reason.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## One may speak for the purposes of a need for the community if that speech is necessary on [[Shabbat]].
### For example, one may speak about the issues of a community to the government on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:59 </ref>
## One may discuss financial aspects of a Shidduch (match) if it is necessary for the fruition of the Shidduch. However, specific details, as well as the actual agreement, must wait until after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6, 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106). See also Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 who says that a shadchan may suggest a shidduch on Shabbat, but not fix a price to collect for making the match. Furthermore, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata seems to be strict not to speak about the financial aspects related to the shidduch itself or the obligations of each side. </ref>
## A father may look for a teacher to teach his son a trade, and even pledge a salary to him, as long as one doesn’t fix a price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6 writes that on [[Shabbat]] one may involve oneself in hiring a teacher for one’s son to teach him a trade, because this involvement is a mitzvah. However, one may not fix the price with the teacher. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 concurs. Biur Halacha s.v. VeLeLamdo expresses that it’s crucial to also teach one’s son Torah before finding him a profession. Otherwise, one's child could come to severe violations of the law in one’s profession and a breach of the religion (Chas VeShalom). </ref>

==Types of Speech==

=== Business Speech ===
# One may not discuss or plan business agreements, transactions, deals, or strategies on [[Shabbat]].<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1 pg 103-4) </ref>
# It is prohibited to forgive a loan on shabbat. However, it is permissible to forgive a loan for a poor person, because it is considered tzedaka.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 23; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 114 </ref>
# Thinking about business on [[Shabbat]] is permissible. However, there’s a mitzvah of Oneg [[Shabbat]] not to think about that on [[Shabbat]], and all the more so one shouldn’t become distracted and worried about business matters.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:8, Mishna Brurah 306:38 </ref>

=== Mundane Speech ===
# One shouldn’t speak about something which causes a person sadness or agony.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Mishna Brurah 307:3. </ref>
## Therefore, one shouldn't relate bad news which causes aggravation.<ref> Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 378) </ref>
# One shouldn’t greet one’s friend the same way as does during the week (e.g. “good morning”, “hello”, “hi”), but rather “good [[Shabbos]]” (or “[[Shabbat]] Shalom”).<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:5 in name of the Shlah explains that through this greeting, one fulfills the mitzvah of Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]. </ref>
# Mundane speech, which doesn’t include (1) a plan to do a melacha, (2) business speech, (3) degrading speech or (4) frivolity, may be spoken on [[Shabbat]], but one may not speak too much of this type of speech. Moreover, the righteous practice is to avoid this type of speech on [[Shabbat]].<ref> Shulchan Aruch 307:1, Mishna Brurah 307:5, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:64 </ref>
## For example, describing one’s trip or summer camp experience, or saying how much one spent on a dress, car, or wedding is permitted, if it is enjoyable to the group. However, one should be careful to limit such speech.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 104) </ref>

=== Distressful Speech ===
# It is forbidden to speak about something distressful or painful on Shabbat. For example, one should not mention a loved-one who passed away or is in pain.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58. See also Mishna Brurah 307:3 who makes this point. </ref>
===Visiting the Sick===
see [[Visiting the Sick]]

==Making Calculations==
# One may not speak about calculations of the price for something which one has not yet paid. If one has already paid, then it is permitted to speak about, as there is no real point to that calculation. Nonetheless, a G-d fearing person would refrain from speaking about calculations for no purpose.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:27, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 180-1). </ref>
# If one already paid, or if there’s a fixed price, one may speak about the price. However, if one is speaking to someone who is thinking (planning) to buy it, it is forbidden to speak about the price. For example, one may say “I spent $30,000 on my son’s wedding”, but they would not be able to tell this to someone making a wedding soon who is looking for tips.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:26, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 2 pg 180). </ref>

==Charity==
# For [[charity]] purposes, it is permitted to make calculations (orally).<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# The minhag is to permit those who are called up for an Aliyah (reading of the Torah) to donate money to [[charity]], and even mention the amount they are donating.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# In some places, the practice is to “sell” the honors of performing the מצות in Shul on [[Shabbat]]. If there is an alternative, it is preferable not to record the sums of the amounts donated, even using cards or slips of papers indicating those amounts. However, those who do so have what to rely on. The same applies to an appeal in Shul for a [[charity]]. It is the practice to hand congregants a card bearing his name in order to donate to the [[charity]] by folding down a tab or attaching a paperclip.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 </ref>

==Announcements==
# It’s permissible to announce a lost object on [[Shabbat]] or to ask who knows about a lost object, because this involves the mitzvah of [[Hashavat Aviedah]].<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:12, Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58, Mishna Brurah 306:48 </ref>

==Releasing a Vow==
# A person may not be released from a vow (Hatarat Nedarim) on [[Shabbat]] unless it’s needed for a mitzvah on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 341:1, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:58 </ref> See [[Nedarim_on_Shabbat]]

==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

File:Speech on shabbat.png

2024-08-23T03:20:36Z

Gsilver2:

Speech on Shabbat

2024-08-23T03:18:53Z

Gsilver2: /* Business Speech */

==Planning for Tomorrow==
# On [[Shabbat]], it is forbidden to say that one is going to do a melacha after [[Shabbat]].<ref>The gemara shabbat 113a-b learns from the pasuk in yeshaya "ודבר דבר" (lit: "and speaking speech") that one's speech on shabbat should be different than during the week. What exactly does this mean? Rashi there says that it's referring to not speaking about business matters. Tosfot argue that this is already included in the other phrase of the pasuk in yeshaya - "ממצוא חפציך" (lit: and seeking your interests) - and therefore interpret it to mean not speaking too much on shabbat in general (even speech which is otherwise permitted).

*The gemara shabbat 150b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of shmuel that one is allowed to say to his friend on shabbat "I am going to such-and-such place tomorrow", even though that place is outside of his techum, since he could in theory go there today if there were huts spaced every 70 amot along the way (שאם יש בורגנין הולך). What shmuel is essentially stating here is that if one in theory has the possibility of doing something permissibly on shabbat, even if that possibility doesn't exist at the current moment, one is allowed to speak about it. The continuation of the gemara makes it clear, though, that if something is prohibited to do on shabbat, even if only rabbinically, and there would be no possibility of doing it permissibly, then one may not speak about it on shabbat. The Rosh 23:6 makes this point. The Tur siman 307 connects the two sugyot and suggests that the reason why one may not speak about melacha on shabbat is due to ודבר דבר (even though that isn't how Rashi or Tosfot understood the gemara on daf 113). The Shulchan Aruch 307:1,8 paskens this way. </ref>
## For example, one shouldn’t say “After [[Shabbat]], ... I’m going to drive a car”, “I’m going to write a letter”, or “I’m going to buy a certain item”,<Ref>Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 377) </ref> “I will fix the refrigerator door next week”, “I will wallpaper the room after [[Shabbat]]”.<ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 103) </ref>
## One may not plan specific details for a family vacation such as which hotel or airline to book.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 105) </ref>
# One may speak about another prohibition other than prohibited melacha. For example, on [[Yom Kippur]] one may speak about eating after [[Yom Kippur]].<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:61 </ref>

===Not Explicit===
# One may say “I will go to a certain place tomorrow”, even if it is outside the techum or if one plans on driving, as long as he doesn’t mention how he will travel.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:8, Mishna Brurah 307:30, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 184), 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 105). Since you aren't explicitly mentioning the melacha, but rather just that you are "going" to a particular place, this is ok because you would be able to walk there (and even if it's outside the techum, you would be able to walk there if there were בורגנין). </ref>

===Hinting===
# One may hint that one’s friend, or a non-Jew, should pick one up (in a car) after [[Shabbat]], even if it’s not a mitzvah need.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## For example one may ask whether another person is available to come after [[Shabbat]], or telling them that he’d be happy if they were able to come after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:52. The Shulchan Aruch 307:7 (based on the gemara 150a) writes that one may not hire someone on shabbat for after [[Shabbat]], but one would be allowed to ask “do you think you would be available for me tonight?”. The reason is that in this latter case, you aren't actually explicitly stating the melacha that will take place, and thus this can be considered "הרהור" and not "דיבור". </ref>

===To Oneself===
# Anything that one may not say to another on shabbat, one may also not say to oneself.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 172). See Rama 307:8 and Mishna Brurah 307:36. </ref>

===For a Mitzvah===
# Even for the purpose of a mitzvah, one should refrain from speaking about a Melacha. Therefore one shouldn’t say “Tomorrow I’m going to write a Sefer Torah”, unless there is a fear that one will become lazy regarding the project, in which case it’s permissible to speak about in order to motivate oneself.<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:1 </ref> Others are lenient in any event.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 57. See also Mishna Brurah 307:1 who cites from the Elya Raba, the ma'amar mordechai, and the birkei yosef, who hold that for the purposes of "dvar mitzvah" (lit: fulfilling a mitzva), one is allowed to speak about melacha. Presumably they all hold that since the prohibition is based on ודבר דבר, and there is a heter for ממצוא חפציך if it's for the purpose of a mitzvah (see gemara 150a which states the principle that חפצי שמים מותרים), this applies to the prohibition of ודבר דבר as well. </ref>
## One may discuss plans for a fundraiser for a Shul or Torah institution, as this effort is a Mitzvah.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106) </ref>
## One may not say “Pick me up with your car tonight (after [[Shabbat]])”, unless it is for a mitzvah reason.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## One may speak for the purposes of a need for the community if that speech is necessary on [[Shabbat]].
### For example, one may speak about the issues of a community to the government on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:59 </ref>
## One may discuss financial aspects of a Shidduch (match) if it is necessary for the fruition of the Shidduch. However, specific details, as well as the actual agreement, must wait until after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6, 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106). See also Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 who says that a shadchan may suggest a shidduch on Shabbat, but not fix a price to collect for making the match. Furthermore, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata seems to be strict not to speak about the financial aspects related to the shidduch itself or the obligations of each side. </ref>
## A father may look for a teacher to teach his son a trade, and even pledge a salary to him, as long as one doesn’t fix a price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6 writes that on [[Shabbat]] one may involve oneself in hiring a teacher for one’s son to teach him a trade, because this involvement is a mitzvah. However, one may not fix the price with the teacher. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 concurs. Biur Halacha s.v. VeLeLamdo expresses that it’s crucial to also teach one’s son Torah before finding him a profession. Otherwise, one's child could come to severe violations of the law in one’s profession and a breach of the religion (Chas VeShalom). </ref>

==Types of Speech==

=== Business Speech ===
# One may not discuss or plan business agreements, transactions, deals, or strategies on [[Shabbat]].<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1 pg 103-4) </ref>
# It is prohibited to forgive a loan on shabbat. However, it is permissible to forgive a loan for a poor person, because it is considered tzedaka.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 23; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 114 </ref>
# Thinking about business on [[Shabbat]] is permissible. However, there’s a mitzvah of Oneg [[Shabbat]] not to think about that on [[Shabbat]], and all the more so one shouldn’t become distracted and worried about business matters.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:8, Mishna Brurah 306:38 </ref>

=== Mundane Speech ===
# One shouldn’t speak about something which causes a person sadness or agony.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Mishna Brurah 307:3. </ref>
## Therefore, one shouldn't relate bad news which causes aggravation.<ref> Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 378) </ref>
# One shouldn’t greet one’s friend the same way as does during the week (e.g. “good morning”, “hello”, “hi”), but rather “good [[Shabbos]]” (or “[[Shabbat]] Shalom”).<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:5 in name of the Shlah explains that through this greeting, one fulfills the mitzvah of Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]. </ref>
# Mundane speech, which doesn’t include (1) a plan to do a melacha, (2) business speech, (3) degrading speech or (4) frivolity, may be spoken on [[Shabbat]], but one may not speak too much of this type of speech. Moreover, the righteous practice is to avoid this type of speech on [[Shabbat]].<ref> Shulchan Aruch 307:1, Mishna Brurah 307:5, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:64 </ref>
## For example, describing one’s trip or summer camp experience, or saying how much one spent on a dress, car, or wedding is permitted, if it is enjoyable to the group. However, one should be careful to limit such speech.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 104) </ref>

=== Distressful Speech ===
# It is forbidden to speak about something distressful or painful on Shabbat. For example, one should not mention a loved-one who passed away or is in pain.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58. See also Mishna Brurah 307:3 who makes this point. </ref>
===Visiting the Sick===
see [[Visiting the Sick]]

==Making Calculations==
# One may not speak about calculations of the price for something which one has not yet paid. If one has already paid, then it is permitted to speak about, as there is no real point to that calculation. Nonetheless, a G-d fearing person would refrain from speaking about calculations for no purpose.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:27, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 180-1). </ref>
# If one already paid, or if there’s a fixed price, one may speak about the price. However, if one is speaking to someone who is thinking (planning) to buy it, it is forbidden to speak about the price. For example, one may say “I spent $30,000 on my son’s wedding”, but they would not be able to tell this to someone making a wedding soon who is looking for tips.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:26, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 2 pg 180). </ref>

==Charity==
# For [[charity]] purposes, it is permitted to make calculations (orally).<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# The minhag is to permit those who are called up for an Aliyah (reading of the Torah) to donate money to [[charity]], and even mention the amount they are donating.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# In some places, the practice is to “sell” the honors of performing the מצות in Shul on [[Shabbat]]. If there is an alternative, it is preferable not to record the sums of the amounts donated, even using cards or slips of papers indicating those amounts. However, those who do so have what to rely on. The same applies to an appeal in Shul for a [[charity]]. It is the practice to hand congregants a card bearing his name in order to donate to the [[charity]] by folding down a tab or attaching a paperclip.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 </ref>

==Announcements==
# It’s permissible to announce a lost object on [[Shabbat]] or to ask who knows about a lost object, because this involves the mitzvah of [[Hashavat Aviedah]].<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:12, Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58, Mishna Brurah 306:48 </ref>

==Releasing a Vow==
# A person may not be released from a vow (Hatarat Nedarim) on [[Shabbat]] unless it’s needed for a mitzvah on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 341:1, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:58 </ref> See [[Nedarim_on_Shabbat]]

==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Speech on Shabbat

2024-08-23T03:17:38Z

Gsilver2: /* Planning for Tomorrow */

==Planning for Tomorrow==
# On [[Shabbat]], it is forbidden to say that one is going to do a melacha after [[Shabbat]].<ref>The gemara shabbat 113a-b learns from the pasuk in yeshaya "ודבר דבר" (lit: "and speaking speech") that one's speech on shabbat should be different than during the week. What exactly does this mean? Rashi there says that it's referring to not speaking about business matters. Tosfot argue that this is already included in the other phrase of the pasuk in yeshaya - "ממצוא חפציך" (lit: and seeking your interests) - and therefore interpret it to mean not speaking too much on shabbat in general (even speech which is otherwise permitted).

*The gemara shabbat 150b cites a statement of rav yehudah in the name of shmuel that one is allowed to say to his friend on shabbat "I am going to such-and-such place tomorrow", even though that place is outside of his techum, since he could in theory go there today if there were huts spaced every 70 amot along the way (שאם יש בורגנין הולך). What shmuel is essentially stating here is that if one in theory has the possibility of doing something permissibly on shabbat, even if that possibility doesn't exist at the current moment, one is allowed to speak about it. The continuation of the gemara makes it clear, though, that if something is prohibited to do on shabbat, even if only rabbinically, and there would be no possibility of doing it permissibly, then one may not speak about it on shabbat. The Rosh 23:6 makes this point. The Tur siman 307 connects the two sugyot and suggests that the reason why one may not speak about melacha on shabbat is due to ודבר דבר (even though that isn't how Rashi or Tosfot understood the gemara on daf 113). The Shulchan Aruch 307:1,8 paskens this way. </ref>
## For example, one shouldn’t say “After [[Shabbat]], ... I’m going to drive a car”, “I’m going to write a letter”, or “I’m going to buy a certain item”,<Ref>Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 377) </ref> “I will fix the refrigerator door next week”, “I will wallpaper the room after [[Shabbat]]”.<ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 103) </ref>
## One may not plan specific details for a family vacation such as which hotel or airline to book.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 105) </ref>
# One may speak about another prohibition other than prohibited melacha. For example, on [[Yom Kippur]] one may speak about eating after [[Yom Kippur]].<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:61 </ref>

===Not Explicit===
# One may say “I will go to a certain place tomorrow”, even if it is outside the techum or if one plans on driving, as long as he doesn’t mention how he will travel.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:8, Mishna Brurah 307:30, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 184), 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 105). Since you aren't explicitly mentioning the melacha, but rather just that you are "going" to a particular place, this is ok because you would be able to walk there (and even if it's outside the techum, you would be able to walk there if there were בורגנין). </ref>

===Hinting===
# One may hint that one’s friend, or a non-Jew, should pick one up (in a car) after [[Shabbat]], even if it’s not a mitzvah need.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## For example one may ask whether another person is available to come after [[Shabbat]], or telling them that he’d be happy if they were able to come after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:52. The Shulchan Aruch 307:7 (based on the gemara 150a) writes that one may not hire someone on shabbat for after [[Shabbat]], but one would be allowed to ask “do you think you would be available for me tonight?”. The reason is that in this latter case, you aren't actually explicitly stating the melacha that will take place, and thus this can be considered "הרהור" and not "דיבור". </ref>

===To Oneself===
# Anything that one may not say to another on shabbat, one may also not say to oneself.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 172). See Rama 307:8 and Mishna Brurah 307:36. </ref>

===For a Mitzvah===
# Even for the purpose of a mitzvah, one should refrain from speaking about a Melacha. Therefore one shouldn’t say “Tomorrow I’m going to write a Sefer Torah”, unless there is a fear that one will become lazy regarding the project, in which case it’s permissible to speak about in order to motivate oneself.<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:1 </ref> Others are lenient in any event.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 57. See also Mishna Brurah 307:1 who cites from the Elya Raba, the ma'amar mordechai, and the birkei yosef, who hold that for the purposes of "dvar mitzvah" (lit: fulfilling a mitzva), one is allowed to speak about melacha. Presumably they all hold that since the prohibition is based on ודבר דבר, and there is a heter for ממצוא חפציך if it's for the purpose of a mitzvah (see gemara 150a which states the principle that חפצי שמים מותרים), this applies to the prohibition of ודבר דבר as well. </ref>
## One may discuss plans for a fundraiser for a Shul or Torah institution, as this effort is a Mitzvah.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106) </ref>
## One may not say “Pick me up with your car tonight (after [[Shabbat]])”, unless it is for a mitzvah reason.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 183) </ref>
## One may speak for the purposes of a need for the community if that speech is necessary on [[Shabbat]].
### For example, one may speak about the issues of a community to the government on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:59 </ref>
## One may discuss financial aspects of a Shidduch (match) if it is necessary for the fruition of the Shidduch. However, specific details, as well as the actual agreement, must wait until after [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6, 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1, pg 106). See also Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 who says that a shadchan may suggest a shidduch on Shabbat, but not fix a price to collect for making the match. Furthermore, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata seems to be strict not to speak about the financial aspects related to the shidduch itself or the obligations of each side. </ref>
## A father may look for a teacher to teach his son a trade, and even pledge a salary to him, as long as one doesn’t fix a price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:6 writes that on [[Shabbat]] one may involve oneself in hiring a teacher for one’s son to teach him a trade, because this involvement is a mitzvah. However, one may not fix the price with the teacher. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 concurs. Biur Halacha s.v. VeLeLamdo expresses that it’s crucial to also teach one’s son Torah before finding him a profession. Otherwise, one's child could come to severe violations of the law in one’s profession and a breach of the religion (Chas VeShalom). </ref>

==Business Speech==
# One may not discuss or plan business agreements, transactions, deals, or strategies on [[Shabbat]].<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 1 pg 103-4) </ref>
# It is prohibited to forgive a loan on shabbat. However, it is permissible to forgive a loan for a poor person, because it is considered tzedaka.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 23; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 114 </ref>
# Thinking about business on [[Shabbat]] is permissible. However, there’s a mitzvah of Oneg [[Shabbat]] not to think about that on [[Shabbat]], and all the more so one shouldn’t become distracted and worried about business matters.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:8, Mishna Brurah 306:38 </ref>

==Mundane Speech==
# One shouldn’t speak about something which causes a person sadness or agony.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Mishna Brurah 307:3. </ref>
## Therefore, one shouldn't relate bad news which causes aggravation.<ref> Practical Laws of [[Shabbat]] (Rabbi Rafael Soae, vol 1, pg 378) </ref>
# One shouldn’t greet one’s friend the same way as does during the week (e.g. “good morning”, “hello”, “hi”), but rather “good [[Shabbos]]” (or “[[Shabbat]] Shalom”).<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:5 in name of the Shlah explains that through this greeting, one fulfills the mitzvah of Zachor Et Yom Ha[[Shabbat]]. </ref>
# Mundane speech, which doesn’t include (1) a plan to do a melacha, (2) business speech, (3) degrading speech or (4) frivolity, may be spoken on [[Shabbat]], but one may not speak too much of this type of speech. Moreover, the righteous practice is to avoid this type of speech on [[Shabbat]].<ref> Shulchan Aruch 307:1, Mishna Brurah 307:5, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:64 </ref>
## For example, describing one’s trip or summer camp experience, or saying how much one spent on a dress, car, or wedding is permitted, if it is enjoyable to the group. However, one should be careful to limit such speech.<Ref>39 Melachos (vol 1, pg 104) </ref>

==Distressful Speech==
# It is forbidden to speak about something distressful or painful on Shabbat. For example, one should not mention a loved-one who passed away or is in pain.<ref> Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58. See also Mishna Brurah 307:3 who makes this point. </ref>
===Visiting the Sick===
see [[Visiting the Sick]]

==Making Calculations==
# One may not speak about calculations of the price for something which one has not yet paid. If one has already paid, then it is permitted to speak about, as there is no real point to that calculation. Nonetheless, a G-d fearing person would refrain from speaking about calculations for no purpose.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:27, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, 180-1). </ref>
# If one already paid, or if there’s a fixed price, one may speak about the price. However, if one is speaking to someone who is thinking (planning) to buy it, it is forbidden to speak about the price. For example, one may say “I spent $30,000 on my son’s wedding”, but they would not be able to tell this to someone making a wedding soon who is looking for tips.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:6, Mishna Brurah 307:26, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:4, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 2 pg 180). </ref>

==Charity==
# For [[charity]] purposes, it is permitted to make calculations (orally).<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# The minhag is to permit those who are called up for an Aliyah (reading of the Torah) to donate money to [[charity]], and even mention the amount they are donating.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:55 </ref>
# In some places, the practice is to “sell” the honors of performing the מצות in Shul on [[Shabbat]]. If there is an alternative, it is preferable not to record the sums of the amounts donated, even using cards or slips of papers indicating those amounts. However, those who do so have what to rely on. The same applies to an appeal in Shul for a [[charity]]. It is the practice to hand congregants a card bearing his name in order to donate to the [[charity]] by folding down a tab or attaching a paperclip.<Ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:56 </ref>

==Announcements==
# It’s permissible to announce a lost object on [[Shabbat]] or to ask who knows about a lost object, because this involves the mitzvah of [[Hashavat Aviedah]].<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 306:12, Chazon Ovadia vol. 6 pg. 58, Mishna Brurah 306:48 </ref>

==Releasing a Vow==
# A person may not be released from a vow (Hatarat Nedarim) on [[Shabbat]] unless it’s needed for a mitzvah on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 341:1, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:58 </ref> See [[Nedarim_on_Shabbat]]

==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Shnayim Mikra V'Echad Targum

2024-08-22T03:18:48Z

Gsilver2: /* Earliest and Latest Time */

[[Image:Learning Torah.jpg|300px|right]]
There is a mitzvah to learn the parsha that the congregation is reading each week on Shabbat. This study is done by Jews all around the world on a consistent basis and they complete the Torah annually. The prescribed study includes learning the text of the parsha twice and once with Targum or Rashi.
==Who is Obligated?==

#All men have an obligation to read the parsha that the Tzibbur is currently reading (Parshat HaShavua) twice, with the targum once. This [[mitzvah]] is called Shenayim Mikrah V'Echad Targum.<ref>Rav Huna Bar Yehuda in Gemara [[Brachot]] 8a says that a person should read the Parsha twice and Targum once. This is codified by the Rambam ([[Tefillah]] 13:25), Tur, Shulchan Aruch 285:1, and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11. Mechilta Parshat Bo quoted by Bet Yosef 285:5 records that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi commanded his sons to fulfill this obligation before [[Shabbat]] lunch. Aruch Hashulchan 285:2 writes that this obligation is an institution since the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. Sh”t Maharsham (1:213 "ulam") writes that this has become a real obligation. Baal Haturim Shemot 1:1, Levush 285:1, Pri Megadim MZ 285:1 bring a hint to this obligation from the first pasuk in sefer shemot from the first letter of each word in the pasuk. See there for the small variations in the hint. </ref>
##Women are exempt from Shnayim Mikrah.<ref>Sh”t Mishna Halachot 6:60 writes that women are exempt from Shnayim Mikrah because many hold Shnayim Mikrah is included in the mitzvah of [[learning Torah]] from which woman are generally exempt. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 42:60 and Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 1 pg 361) agree. See Mishna Brurah 282:12 who writes that even though woman aren't obligated in Talmud Torah, they should listen to the [[Kriyat HaTorah]], but the minhag isn't to be strict about this. Regarding women listening to kriyat hatorah, see Aruch Hashulchan 282:11.</ref> A woman who wants to read Shnayim Mikrah may do so.<ref>Chazon Ovadyah ([[Shabbat]] vol 1, pg 328) </ref>
#Even someone who will hear the Torah reading in Shul must read Shenayim Mikra.<ref>The Hagahot Maimoniot (on Rambam [[Tefillah]] 13:25) quotes the Raavan who says that [[Shenayim Mikra]] is only an obligation for those who live in villages that don’t have Torah reading on [[Shabbat]]. However, the Hagahot Maimon argues on the Raavan. The Rambam 13:25, Tur, and S”A 285:1 write explicitly that there’s an obligation of [[Shenayim Mikra]] even for someone who heard Torah reading in shul. </ref>
#Even someone who is learned and wants to learn Talmud is obligated to read Shnayim Mikrah.<ref>Teshuvot HaGeonim 7 in name of Rabbenu Matatya says that even a talmid chacham must complete Shenyaim Mikra VeEchad Targum. Sh”t Rashba 1:206 agrees. This is brought as Halacha in Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 300), Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:17, Shulchan Lechem HaPanim (Siman 285), and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 42:57. Kuntres Hilchot Shnayim Mikra VeChad Targum (Rabbi Sender, pg 10) writes that he saw Rav Elyashiv reading Shnayim Mikra even though he never wastes any time from [[learning Torah]]. Bikkurei Chaim (pg 39) writes that those who think that it’s [[Bitul Torah]] since they are capable of learning more in-depth should know that by spending more time on Shnayim Mikra they will be rewarded with long life ([[Brachot]] 8a). </ref>
#Even someone who doesn’t understand Targum very well should still read Shnayim Mikra V'Echad Targum.<ref>Sh”t Yechave Daat 2:37, Yalkut Yosef (vol 1, pg 358), Kuntres Hilchot Shnayim Mikra VeChad Targum (Rabbi Sender, pg 12) quoting Rav Elyashiv, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (chap 42, note 215)</ref> Others hold that if one doesn't understand Targum, then one doesn't fulfill his obligation with reading Targum, and instead should learn Rashi.<ref>Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Maamarim Umichtavim n. 18</ref>
#A parent should teach his son to read Shnayim mikra.<ref>Sh”t [[Shevet Halevi]] 8:46, Sh”t Teshuvot V’Hanhagot 1:661, Halichot Shlomo [[Tefilla]] 12:36 </ref>
#A sick, blind, or illiterate man is exempt, but it’s preferable to hear it read from another person.<ref>Sh”t Radvaz 3:425, Kaf HaChaim 285:9-10, Sh”t Mahari Shtif 18</ref>
#A mourner within the first 7 days can read shnayim mikrah, but not with Rashi.<ref>Sh”t Habit HaYehudi 3:36(15), SH”t Orchot Yosher Y”D 1:28.</ref>
#A teacher who teaches children the parsha and goes over the pesukim a few times, only needs to read targum to fulfill his obligation.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 285:6, Mishna Brurah 285:16. Kaf Hachaim 285:32 adds that according Kabbalah it’s better to read it again all together without a break.</ref>

==What Pesukim and What Targum?==

#The Targum Unkelos we have printed in regular Chumashim, which includes a Targum of every pasuk, can be used even for pesukim that are just names or places.<ref>The Gemara [[Berachot]] 8a says that one should also read the pesukim of just names such as “Atarot VeDevon”. Rashi explains that the pasuk chosen by the gemara has no targum at all, and so one should have to read that pasuk 3 times instead of twice. However, Tosfos explains that the pasuk chosen by the gemara has a targum Yerushalmi, just not targum onkelos, and so one should read that other targum (according to this, one need not read a pasuk 3 times if it has no targum whatsoever). So writes the Talmedei Rabbenu Yonah, Ravyah ([[Brachot]] 22), Mordechai ([[Brachot]] 1:17), Tashbetz 184, Orchot Chaim pg 64b:3, Kol Bo 37, and Leket Yosher pg 55. Since nowadays our Targum is the Mechlalta UMalbusta which is a derivative of Targum Yerushalmi, one should read the Targum for the third time. So holds the Badei Shulchan 10b:1, Rabbenu BeChay (end of Matot), and Elfasi Zuta ([[Brachot]] 8b).</ref>
#Rashi’s commentary also counts as Targum. A Yireh Shamayim should read both Targum Unkelos and Rashi.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 285:2, Mishna Brurah 285:6 says reading Unkelos is important since it was the targum of Torah given at har Sinai and since he comments on every word, and Rashi is also important since he includes the comments of Chazal. Sh”T Kinyan Torah 6:146 says in the name of the Meharash that someone who learns Rashi on the Parsha every week is deserving of a portion of Olam Haba in Rashi’s Yeshiva. See Sh”t Shalmat Chaim 171. See also Michtavei Chafetz Chayim #18, where he says that nowadays we don't fulfill the mitzva with reading the targum (presumably since this isn't our native tongue) and one must read rashi instead. </ref>
##Some poskim say that one could be yotzeh the targum with an English translation of Rashi's commentary.<ref>The Taz 285:2 quoted by Mishna Berurah 285:5 says that if you do not understand targum unkelos or Rashi you can read the tzena u'rena, which was written in German. Based on this, Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted in Yagel Yaakov page 208 and in Dirshu Mishna Brura 285: note 15), as well as Rav Moshe Shternbuch in his Teshuvot Vihanhagot 1:261: "vhiskamti" allow using an English translation of rashi if that is the best way for one to study and understand the parsha. </ref>
#The pasuk "Shema Yisrael" can be said twice and then it’s Targum.<ref>Maamar Mordechai 61:5 says since it’s recognizable that one is repeating every pasuk it’s not like he is acknowledging two deities (the issue with saying Shema twice in general, as per Shulchan Aruch 61:9). This is also the opinion of Sh”t Yam hagadol 3, Badei Shulchan 72:10, Sh”t Avnei Tzedek O”C 9, Divrei Menachem 61:2.</ref>
#One doesn’t need to do it on the [[Yom Tov]] reading, [[Rosh Chodesh]], or the four parshiot or any reading that’s not in the weekly parsha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 285:7, Mishna Brurah 285:18 and Kaf Hachaim 285: 35 explain that it’s because one is already completing the Torah by doing the weekly parsha. Kaf Hachaim 285:35, Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 3:40 extend this to any time we have keriat hatorah that’s not the regular weekly parsha. </ref>
#One should read the Haftorah of the weekly parsha, even if the Haftorah read in shul is a special one for [[Rosh Chodesh]] or Zachor.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11 writes that the minhag is to read the haftorah as well as the parsha. The Chida in Moreh Etzbah 4:131-2 writes that one should read the weekly Haftorah even if a special one is being read in shul. Kaf Hachaim 285:36 and Ben Ish Chai Lech Lecha 11 agree.</ref>

==How to Read it?==
===Order of Mikra and Targum===

#There are three practices as how to read Shenayim Mikra:
##Read each pasuk twice, followed by its Targum.<ref>The Arizal (Shaare Kavanot 62a) would read Shnayim Mikra pasuk by pasuk. The Sefer Itim (pg 244), Magen Avraham 285:1, Maharam MeRutenberg (Pesakim VeMinhagim, Mehura HaRav Kahana pg 217), Or Ha[[Shabbat]] (8:41 in name of the Bal Shem Tov), and Chida in Machzik Bracha 285:10 all hold that Shnayim Mikra should be done pasuk by pasuk. Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 7:33 writes that such was the minhag of the Chafetz Chaim. </ref>
###Alternatively, read each pasuk with its Targum, and then the entire parsha once.<ref>The Birur Halacha (Beginning of 285) writes that reading the entire parsha once and then each pasuk followed by it’s Targum, or reading the each pasuk once followed by it’s Targum and then the entire parsha once are both valid options that are halachically the same as the Arizal’s method because the entire issue is reading the Targum close to the pasuk. This is brought by Bikkurei Chaim 3:1. </ref>
##Read each paragraph, petucha (a line break before the next paragraph) or setuma (a short break before the next paragraph) twice and then it’s Targum.<ref>Kitzur S”A 72:11 writes that one should read each paragraph twice whether it’s patucha or setuma and then the Targum. The Shelah brings the different opinions and writes that he prefers reading one paragraph at a time and then doing the Targum on that. So was the practice of the Gra (HaMaaseh Rav 60) quoted in Mishna Brurah 285:8. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky in Emes Liyaakov 285:1 suggests something similar that one should read a paragraph just mikra once, and then a second time with the targum. </ref>
##Read the entire parsha twice and then the Targum.<ref>Aruch HaShulchan 285:7 according to the simple understanding of “completing the parsha twice with Targum” and supports it from Rashi and Or Zaruah. Torat [[Shabbat]] 285 writes that such was the minhag of Mahara MeBalaza. Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) writes in name of the Steipler that there’s no difference between methods 2 and 3. Mishmeret Shalom 24:33 writes that his father and grandfather had the practice to read the [[Shenayim Mikra]] from the Torah and since it was difficult to interrupt between each pasuk to read Targum (and then have to find the place again), they read the entire Parsha twice and then Targum. </ref>
#Some say that it’s Lechatchila to go like the first practice of reading it pasuk by pasuk,<ref>S”A HaRav 285:3, Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 301-2), and Dvar Yom BeYomo (Cheshvan) write that Lechatchila one should follow the Arizal to read it pasuk by pasuk. However, if there isn’t a lot of time, one can follow the other methods. </ref> and some say that one can follow any of the above practices as one wishes.<ref>Aruch HaShulchan 285:7 writes this regarding all three practices, while Mishna Brurah 285:2 writes this regarding the first two practices. </ref>
#One shouldn’t read Targum first and then the pasuk twice, but rather at least one reading of the pasuk should come at the end.<ref>Mishna Brurah 285:6 says one shouldn’t say targum and then the pasuk twice. [[Seder]] Hayom (pg 21a) writes that one who reads [[Shenayim Mikra]] in this order doesn’t fulfill the obligation. </ref>
##Bedieved, if one did the pasuk, Targum and then the pasuk again, he fulfills his obligation.<ref>Kiseh Eliyahu 285:1, Kaf HaChaim 285:6 say one shouldn’t say the pasuk, targum, and then the pasuk. On the other hand, the Levush writes that one is allowed to fulfill one reading of mikra by listening to the Torah reading. The Lechem Chamudot (on Rosh [[Brachot]] 41) writes that it’s clear from the Levush that the order Bedieved was to read it once with the pesukim, once with the targum and then again with the pesukim. The Lechem Chamudot is brought as Halacha in Mishna Brurah (Shaare Tzion 285:10), Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 16:18, Sh”t Beir Moshe 8:3, Sh”t Rivivot Efraim 5:216 all holding that it’s Bedieved. Nonetheless, Shulchan Lechem HaPanim (Vol 5 pg 139), Yesodei Yishurun (Erev [[Shabbat]]), Meon Bracha ([[Brachot]] 8b; in name of Tosfot [[Yom Tov]]) and perhaps Aruch HaShulchan 285:3. The practice of the Chazon Ish (Bekkurei Chaim pg 79 and Derech Sichah by Rav Chaim Kanievsky pg. 2) was to read the pasuk, targum, and then pasuk again because he felt that the targum helped him understand the pasuk better the second time. </ref>
##Lechatchila, one should read a pasuk twice and then it’s Targum, but if one read the whole parsha first and then the Targum, one has fulfilled his obligation.<ref>Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 301-2) and Shu"t Yechave Daat 2:37. Sefer Itim pg 244 says one should read it pasuk by pasuk. Leket yosher pg 54 says if one doesn’t have targum he can read the whole parsha twice and do targum when he finds Targum. Shelah writes that some read it pasuk by pasuk and some read the whole parsha twice and then the Targum and he prefers reading one paragraph at a time and then doing the Targum on that. So was the practice of the Gra (HaMaaseh Rav 60). However the Arizal (Shaare Kavanot 62a) would read it pasuk by pasuk. Magen Avraham 285:1, Maharam MeRutenberg (Pesakim VeMinahgim, Mehura HaRav Kahana pg 217), and Chida in Machzik Bracha 285:10 agree.</ref>
#One should repeat the last pasuk again after finishing the targum in order to end with mikra.<ref>Magen Avraham 285:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11, Aruch HaShulchan 285:6, [http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5772/shemos.html Rabbi Nuestadt in Weekly Halachic Discussions] </ref> Some have the practice to repeat the last pasuk of the parsha twice without Targum (after having finished the whole parsha Shnayim Mikrah V'Echad Targum).<ref>Kaf Hachaim Palagi 27:3, Chida in Morah BeEtzba 4:131</ref>

===Reading with Te'amim (Trop)===

#One should read the Torah with the tune of Torah reading,<ref>Chida in Machazik Beracha 285:8, Yechave Daat 2:37, Kaf Hachaim 132:6 </ref> but Targum shouldn’t be read with a tune.<ref>Yechave Daat 2:37, Chida in Machazik Beracha 285:7, Kaf Hachaim 132:6 </ref>
##One fulfills his obligation bedieved if he read it without a tune.<ref>Sh”t Torah Lishma 406, Kaf Hachaim 132:6, 285:12-13, in 285:4 he writes in name of [[Maggid]] Mesharim one should say it slowly and carefully. Sh”t Teshuvot Vehanhagot 2:204 says bedieved one fulfills his obligation.</ref>
#Someone who owns a Sefer Torah and knows how to read it with the tune and pronunciations, should read it from a Sefer Torah. If one doesn’t know the correct way to read it well, it’s preferable to read it from a Chumash that has Tamim and Nekudot.<ref>Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 302-3)</ref>

===Positioning and Focus===

#One is allowed to read Shnayim Mikrah while seated.<ref>Pri Megadim (M”Z 690:1, Bikkurei Chaim 3:11 </ref>
#If possible, it's good not to interrupt when reading Shnayim Mikrah, and a pious person should be strict about this.<ref>Mishna Brurah 285:6 writes if it's possible it's good not to interrupt when reading Shnayim Mikrah and a pious person should be strict about this. Kaf Hachaim 285:15 quotes this in the name of the Mekubalim and adds that if one is very thirsty one may interrupt to drink with a bracha before and after.
Kaf HaChaim Palagi 27:4 writes that in middle of Shnayim Mikrah one may not interrupt to talk even in Hebrew.</ref> Some allowed interrupting to answer a question.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman in Halichot Shlomo ([[Tefillah]], chap 12, note 105) would interrupt reading Shnayim Mikrah in order to answer a question because that entails the mitzvah of Chesed. He adds that Shnayim Mikrah isn't different than other Talmud Torah which may be interrupted in certain situations such as a passing mitzvah. </ref>

==When Should it Be Read==
===Days of the Week===

#Some have the practice to read a little bit every day and complete it on [[Shabbat]] day.<ref>Talmedei Rabbenu Yonah 4b s.v. LeOlam writes that some had the practice to read a little every day and complete it by [[Shabbat]]. This is brought as Halacha by the Aruch HaShulchan 285:1. See also Mishna Brurah 285:8 citing the practice of the Gra to read a little bit of shnayim mikrah every day right after shacharit, finishing on erev shabbat. </ref>

===During [[Kriyat HaTorah]]===

#Some say that one is allowed to read the Shenayim Mikra during Torah reading even if one is reading a different section of the parsha than the Shliach Tzibbur.<ref>(a) The Shibolei HaLeket in the name of his Rabbi, and Hagahot Maimon in name of the Maharam, say that one shouldn’t read along with the Torah reading but rather just listen. This is the opinion of the Magen Avraham 146:5 in name of the Shlah, Kitzur Shlah (pg 81b), Pri Chadash (quoted by Mishna Brurah 146:15), Eliyah Zuta (285:4 in name of Shaar Gedolim), Kaf HaChaim (285:31) in name of Mahara Tuvina, and Gra (Maaseh Rav). (b) On the other hand, the Mordechai ([[Brachot]] 19), Hagahot Ashurei ([[Brachot]] 1:7) in name of Or Zaruah (1:11), Smak 155, Hagahot Maimon ([[Tefillah]] 12:7) hold that one is allowed to read [[Shenayim Mikra]] while the tzibbur is reading the parsha. Accordingly, S”A 285:5 rules that one is allowed to read Shnayim Mikra during Torah reading even if one is reading a section of the parsha that the shaliach isn’t currently reading. The Eliyah Rabba says that one should follow this approach even lechatchila, while the rest of the achronim (including Maamer Mordechai 285:3 and Beiur Halacha 285 s.v. Yachol) argue that it’s only Bedieved or BeShaat HaDachak. (c) Mishna Brurah 285:14 suggests that one can be lenient to read along with the Shaliach Tzibbur word by word and fulfill one time of Mikra with this. The Levush 285:5 and Perisha 285:1 (explaining the Bet Yosef and Rambam) agree that this is a valid method. This is also the opinion of the Mateh Moshe (quoted by Magen Avraham 146:5) even lechatchila. Similarly, the Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) in says that the minhag of the Stiepler was to read it once on Friday afternoon and once with the Bal Koreh. However, Sh”t Yechave Daat 2:37 and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 42:51 writes that only if a person doesn’t have time one is allowed to read it word by word with the Shliach Tzibbur. </ref>
#All agree that one is allowed to read Shenayim Mikra between Aliyot.<ref>Mishna Brurah 285:14 writes that even the stringent opinions about reading the Shenayim along with the Bal Koreh, allow one to read [[Shenayim Mikra]] between Aliyot. Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) writes the minhag of the Stiepler was to read it once on Friday afternoon, once with the Bal Koreh, and the Targum in between aliyot. </ref>
#Some say that one fulfills one’s obligation by listening to the Torah reading. However, others hold that one doesn’t fulfill his obligation even Bedieved. Therefore one shouldn't only listen to the Bal Koreh, but rather should read along word by word.<ref>The Magen Avraham 285:8, Chaye Adam 7:9, Shulchan Ha[[Shabbat]] 60, Shitilei Zaytim 285:10 write that Bedieved one fulfilled one’s obligation by simply listening to the Bal Koreh. However, the Bet Yosef (D”H Katuv BeHagot) and Rambam ([[Tefillah]] 13:25) hold that by listening one doesn’t fulfill his obligation. Therefore, S”A HaRav 285:8 writes that one should rely on this only BeShaat HaDachak. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=208665 Rav Dovid Yosef (min 16)] said that some years his father, Rav Ovadia, would read along with the baal koreh because he didn't have any free time. The Lechem Chamudot (Perek 1 Seif Katan 39) writes that even according to the Beit Yosef and the Rambam one could fulfill his obligation by just listening to the Baal Koreh, it just isn't recommended because it is hard to focus for so long if one is just listening. Instead of just listening one is allowed to read along word by word. </ref>
#One is allowed to read the Shenayim Mikra along with the Shliach Tzibbur during Torah reading word by word and fulfill one’s obligation. Some say that this is Lechatchila, while others hold that this is only for Shat HaDachak.<ref>Perisha writes that by reading the parsha word by word with the Shliach Tzibbur one fulfills one time of reading the parsha. This is brought as Halacha in Aruch HaShulchan 285:3. </ref>
#Some say that one fulfills his obligation with listening to someone else read Shenayim Mikra.<ref>Shaarei Teshuva 285:6 quotes the Radvaz who says that listening to someone else read [[Shenayim Mikra]] fulfills the obligation if one had kavana for the words. </ref>

==Earliest and Latest Time==

#One can begin to read the weekly Parsha once the congregation (Tzibbur) read the Parsha at [[Shabbat]] [[Mincha]].<ref>Rama (Darchei Moshe 285:1) quotes a dispute between the Mordechai - who says one can begin to read [[Shenayim Mikra]] from [[mincha]] of [[Shabbat]] when the congregation begins to read that parsha, and the Kol Bo - who argues that one can not read it then because earlier that day the congregation read the previous parsha. Shulchan Aruch 285:3 writes that one can start on Sunday. Shulchan Aruch Harav 285:5 and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11 agree. The Mishna Brurah 285:7 explains that the language of Shulchan Aruch is imprecise and really one is permitted to start once the Tzibbur began reading the Parsha at [[Shabbat]] [[Mincha]]. Shaar HaTziyun 285:12 notes that the opinion of the Kol Bo is a minority opinion. Kaf HaChaim 285:24 seems to agree. See Sh”t Yaskil Avdi O”C 5:39 and Sh”t Asse Lecha Rav 7:16. </ref>
#Some have the practice to do the [[Shenayim Mikrah]] on Friday afternoon.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11 writes that ideally one should read [[Shenayim Mikra]] on Friday afternoon. Magen Avraham cites this from the Shelah Hakadosh. Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) writes the minhag of the Stiepler was to read it once on Friday afternoon and once with the Bal Koreh. The svara behind this position is that the language of the gemara is that a person should be ישלים פרשיותיו עם הציבור (to complete his parshiyot with the congregation). This makes it sound like the closer one learns shnayim mikrah to the davening shabbat morning, the better. </ref>
#One should finish Shenayim Mikra V'Echad Targum by [[Shabbat]] lunch.<ref>Beit Yosef cites a midrash in which Rebbe Yehudah Hanasi told his children to finish shnayim mikrah before the seudah on shabbat day. Chayei Adam [[Shabbos]] 7:9, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 285:5, Aruch Hashulchan 285:8, Mishna Brurah 285:9 and Beiur Halacha "yashlim." The Shla quoted by the Magen Avraham 285:5-6 and the Arizal quoted by the Shaare Teshuva 285:1 say that one should finish by Friday. </ref>
##If one didn’t complete it by lunch-time, one shouldn't delay lunch for Shnayim Mikrah, but rather one should finish it by [[Mincha]] of [[Shabbat]]. If one didn’t complete it by then, one can fulfill it until Tuesday night. Some hold one can even complete it by that year’s Shemini Atzeret.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 285:4, Mishna Brurah 285:9. See Kaf Chaim Palagi 27:4, Ben Ish Chai Lech Lecha 14. There are many opinions as to what is meant by "until [[mincha]]".
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo, [[Tefilla]] 12:35) and Rav Chaim Kanievsky (quoted in Halichot Chaim v. 1, p. 95) say that one can recite it until he prays [[mincha]].
*Shmirat [[Shabbat]] Kihilchata (2:42:footnote 218) says you can say it until the time of [[mincha]] gedola. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=208665 Rav Dovid Yosef (min 13)] recorded this opinion from Rav Elyashiv and agreed with it.
*Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh (Ketzot Hashulchan 72: Badei Hashulchan 7) says you can recite it until [[mincha]] is recited in the shul.
*The Chazon Ish (cited in Orchos Rabbeinu 3: page 234) held that you should finish by the time you eat seudat shlishit.</ref>
#The Shenayim Mikra V'Echad Targum of Parshat Vezot Habracha should be read on [[Hoshana Rabba]]. However, if one read it on Shemini Atzeret, one also fulfills the obligation.<ref>The Chida in Birkei Yosef 285:4, Ben Ish Chai (Vezot Habracha 1:15), and Mishna Brurah 285:18 write that while it's preferable to read the [[Shenayim Mikra]] of Vezot HaBracha on [[Hoshana Rabba]], it may also be read on [[Shemini Aseret]]. The Piskei Teshuvot 285:4 quotes the Sh"t Kaneh Bosem 1:16 who holds that if one read it prior to [[Hoshana Rabba]] one hasn't fulfilled his obligation. However, the Dvir Hakadosh (Siman 23:4, p. 124) argues that according to Tosfot one should be able to read it from the first time we read it on [[Shabbat]] [[mincha]]. </ref>
#If one misses a week, one should read the previous Parsha's Shenayim Mikra, and then the current week's Parsha.<ref>Sh”t Bear Moshe 5:79 writes that if one misses a week one should read the previous Parsha's [[Shenayim Mikra]] and then the current weeks Parsha. Rav Shlomo Zalman in Halichot Shlomo ([[Tefillah]] 12:36), Ketzos haShulchan 72:9, Chazon Ovadyah ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 314), and [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2057 Daily Halacha (by Rabbi Mansour)] agree. However, Sh”t Yitzchak Yiranen 1:32 says one can make up a parsha out of order. Halichot Shlomo ([[Tefillah]] 12:37) adds that if one did begin the current week's parsha before one finished the previous one, one may finish it.</ref> Some say one should do the current parsha before making up for the previous one.<ref>Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in a shiur. The rationale provided is that it isn't clear whether the operating principle is to compete them in the correct order, or whether making up the missed week is similar to the rule of ''tashlumim'' for a missed prayer (where the current prayer must be completed prior to the makeup prayer). Further, the basic rules is to complete the personal reading concurrently with the public reading; this may apply on a weekly or annual basis.</ref>

==Links==

*Ten Minute Halacha on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/749358/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-shnayim-mikra/ Shnayim Mikra] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz
*Article on [http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/265848/halachic-analysis-shnayim-mikra-vechad-targum.html Shnayim Mikra V'Echad Targum] by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
*Sefer Dedicated to the [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/51001 Halachos of Shenayim Mikra]
*A Beautifully Laid Out Format for [https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Rashi/Bereshit/1.1#m7e0n6 Learning Shenayim Mikra Online at AlHaTorah.org]

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
[[Category:Learning Torah]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Shnayim Mikra V'Echad Targum

2024-08-22T03:10:41Z

Gsilver2: /* Who is obligated? */

[[Image:Learning Torah.jpg|300px|right]]
There is a mitzvah to learn the parsha that the congregation is reading each week on Shabbat. This study is done by Jews all around the world on a consistent basis and they complete the Torah annually. The prescribed study includes learning the text of the parsha twice and once with Targum or Rashi.
==Who is Obligated?==

#All men have an obligation to read the parsha that the Tzibbur is currently reading (Parshat HaShavua) twice, with the targum once. This [[mitzvah]] is called Shenayim Mikrah V'Echad Targum.<ref>Rav Huna Bar Yehuda in Gemara [[Brachot]] 8a says that a person should read the Parsha twice and Targum once. This is codified by the Rambam ([[Tefillah]] 13:25), Tur, Shulchan Aruch 285:1, and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11. Mechilta Parshat Bo quoted by Bet Yosef 285:5 records that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi commanded his sons to fulfill this obligation before [[Shabbat]] lunch. Aruch Hashulchan 285:2 writes that this obligation is an institution since the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. Sh”t Maharsham (1:213 "ulam") writes that this has become a real obligation. Baal Haturim Shemot 1:1, Levush 285:1, Pri Megadim MZ 285:1 bring a hint to this obligation from the first pasuk in sefer shemot from the first letter of each word in the pasuk. See there for the small variations in the hint. </ref>
##Women are exempt from Shnayim Mikrah.<ref>Sh”t Mishna Halachot 6:60 writes that women are exempt from Shnayim Mikrah because many hold Shnayim Mikrah is included in the mitzvah of [[learning Torah]] from which woman are generally exempt. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 42:60 and Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 1 pg 361) agree. See Mishna Brurah 282:12 who writes that even though woman aren't obligated in Talmud Torah, they should listen to the [[Kriyat HaTorah]], but the minhag isn't to be strict about this. Regarding women listening to kriyat hatorah, see Aruch Hashulchan 282:11.</ref> A woman who wants to read Shnayim Mikrah may do so.<ref>Chazon Ovadyah ([[Shabbat]] vol 1, pg 328) </ref>
#Even someone who will hear the Torah reading in Shul must read Shenayim Mikra.<ref>The Hagahot Maimoniot (on Rambam [[Tefillah]] 13:25) quotes the Raavan who says that [[Shenayim Mikra]] is only an obligation for those who live in villages that don’t have Torah reading on [[Shabbat]]. However, the Hagahot Maimon argues on the Raavan. The Rambam 13:25, Tur, and S”A 285:1 write explicitly that there’s an obligation of [[Shenayim Mikra]] even for someone who heard Torah reading in shul. </ref>
#Even someone who is learned and wants to learn Talmud is obligated to read Shnayim Mikrah.<ref>Teshuvot HaGeonim 7 in name of Rabbenu Matatya says that even a talmid chacham must complete Shenyaim Mikra VeEchad Targum. Sh”t Rashba 1:206 agrees. This is brought as Halacha in Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 300), Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:17, Shulchan Lechem HaPanim (Siman 285), and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 42:57. Kuntres Hilchot Shnayim Mikra VeChad Targum (Rabbi Sender, pg 10) writes that he saw Rav Elyashiv reading Shnayim Mikra even though he never wastes any time from [[learning Torah]]. Bikkurei Chaim (pg 39) writes that those who think that it’s [[Bitul Torah]] since they are capable of learning more in-depth should know that by spending more time on Shnayim Mikra they will be rewarded with long life ([[Brachot]] 8a). </ref>
#Even someone who doesn’t understand Targum very well should still read Shnayim Mikra V'Echad Targum.<ref>Sh”t Yechave Daat 2:37, Yalkut Yosef (vol 1, pg 358), Kuntres Hilchot Shnayim Mikra VeChad Targum (Rabbi Sender, pg 12) quoting Rav Elyashiv, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (chap 42, note 215)</ref> Others hold that if one doesn't understand Targum, then one doesn't fulfill his obligation with reading Targum, and instead should learn Rashi.<ref>Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Maamarim Umichtavim n. 18</ref>
#A parent should teach his son to read Shnayim mikra.<ref>Sh”t [[Shevet Halevi]] 8:46, Sh”t Teshuvot V’Hanhagot 1:661, Halichot Shlomo [[Tefilla]] 12:36 </ref>
#A sick, blind, or illiterate man is exempt, but it’s preferable to hear it read from another person.<ref>Sh”t Radvaz 3:425, Kaf HaChaim 285:9-10, Sh”t Mahari Shtif 18</ref>
#A mourner within the first 7 days can read shnayim mikrah, but not with Rashi.<ref>Sh”t Habit HaYehudi 3:36(15), SH”t Orchot Yosher Y”D 1:28.</ref>
#A teacher who teaches children the parsha and goes over the pesukim a few times, only needs to read targum to fulfill his obligation.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 285:6, Mishna Brurah 285:16. Kaf Hachaim 285:32 adds that according Kabbalah it’s better to read it again all together without a break.</ref>

==What Pesukim and What Targum?==

#The Targum Unkelos we have printed in regular Chumashim, which includes a Targum of every pasuk, can be used even for pesukim that are just names or places.<ref>The Gemara [[Berachot]] 8a says that one should also read the pesukim of just names such as “Atarot VeDevon”. Rashi explains that the pasuk chosen by the gemara has no targum at all, and so one should have to read that pasuk 3 times instead of twice. However, Tosfos explains that the pasuk chosen by the gemara has a targum Yerushalmi, just not targum onkelos, and so one should read that other targum (according to this, one need not read a pasuk 3 times if it has no targum whatsoever). So writes the Talmedei Rabbenu Yonah, Ravyah ([[Brachot]] 22), Mordechai ([[Brachot]] 1:17), Tashbetz 184, Orchot Chaim pg 64b:3, Kol Bo 37, and Leket Yosher pg 55. Since nowadays our Targum is the Mechlalta UMalbusta which is a derivative of Targum Yerushalmi, one should read the Targum for the third time. So holds the Badei Shulchan 10b:1, Rabbenu BeChay (end of Matot), and Elfasi Zuta ([[Brachot]] 8b).</ref>
#Rashi’s commentary also counts as Targum. A Yireh Shamayim should read both Targum Unkelos and Rashi.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 285:2, Mishna Brurah 285:6 says reading Unkelos is important since it was the targum of Torah given at har Sinai and since he comments on every word, and Rashi is also important since he includes the comments of Chazal. Sh”T Kinyan Torah 6:146 says in the name of the Meharash that someone who learns Rashi on the Parsha every week is deserving of a portion of Olam Haba in Rashi’s Yeshiva. See Sh”t Shalmat Chaim 171. See also Michtavei Chafetz Chayim #18, where he says that nowadays we don't fulfill the mitzva with reading the targum (presumably since this isn't our native tongue) and one must read rashi instead. </ref>
##Some poskim say that one could be yotzeh the targum with an English translation of Rashi's commentary.<ref>The Taz 285:2 quoted by Mishna Berurah 285:5 says that if you do not understand targum unkelos or Rashi you can read the tzena u'rena, which was written in German. Based on this, Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted in Yagel Yaakov page 208 and in Dirshu Mishna Brura 285: note 15), as well as Rav Moshe Shternbuch in his Teshuvot Vihanhagot 1:261: "vhiskamti" allow using an English translation of rashi if that is the best way for one to study and understand the parsha. </ref>
#The pasuk "Shema Yisrael" can be said twice and then it’s Targum.<ref>Maamar Mordechai 61:5 says since it’s recognizable that one is repeating every pasuk it’s not like he is acknowledging two deities (the issue with saying Shema twice in general, as per Shulchan Aruch 61:9). This is also the opinion of Sh”t Yam hagadol 3, Badei Shulchan 72:10, Sh”t Avnei Tzedek O”C 9, Divrei Menachem 61:2.</ref>
#One doesn’t need to do it on the [[Yom Tov]] reading, [[Rosh Chodesh]], or the four parshiot or any reading that’s not in the weekly parsha.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 285:7, Mishna Brurah 285:18 and Kaf Hachaim 285: 35 explain that it’s because one is already completing the Torah by doing the weekly parsha. Kaf Hachaim 285:35, Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 3:40 extend this to any time we have keriat hatorah that’s not the regular weekly parsha. </ref>
#One should read the Haftorah of the weekly parsha, even if the Haftorah read in shul is a special one for [[Rosh Chodesh]] or Zachor.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11 writes that the minhag is to read the haftorah as well as the parsha. The Chida in Moreh Etzbah 4:131-2 writes that one should read the weekly Haftorah even if a special one is being read in shul. Kaf Hachaim 285:36 and Ben Ish Chai Lech Lecha 11 agree.</ref>

==How to Read it?==
===Order of Mikra and Targum===

#There are three practices as how to read Shenayim Mikra:
##Read each pasuk twice, followed by its Targum.<ref>The Arizal (Shaare Kavanot 62a) would read Shnayim Mikra pasuk by pasuk. The Sefer Itim (pg 244), Magen Avraham 285:1, Maharam MeRutenberg (Pesakim VeMinhagim, Mehura HaRav Kahana pg 217), Or Ha[[Shabbat]] (8:41 in name of the Bal Shem Tov), and Chida in Machzik Bracha 285:10 all hold that Shnayim Mikra should be done pasuk by pasuk. Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 7:33 writes that such was the minhag of the Chafetz Chaim. </ref>
###Alternatively, read each pasuk with its Targum, and then the entire parsha once.<ref>The Birur Halacha (Beginning of 285) writes that reading the entire parsha once and then each pasuk followed by it’s Targum, or reading the each pasuk once followed by it’s Targum and then the entire parsha once are both valid options that are halachically the same as the Arizal’s method because the entire issue is reading the Targum close to the pasuk. This is brought by Bikkurei Chaim 3:1. </ref>
##Read each paragraph, petucha (a line break before the next paragraph) or setuma (a short break before the next paragraph) twice and then it’s Targum.<ref>Kitzur S”A 72:11 writes that one should read each paragraph twice whether it’s patucha or setuma and then the Targum. The Shelah brings the different opinions and writes that he prefers reading one paragraph at a time and then doing the Targum on that. So was the practice of the Gra (HaMaaseh Rav 60) quoted in Mishna Brurah 285:8. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky in Emes Liyaakov 285:1 suggests something similar that one should read a paragraph just mikra once, and then a second time with the targum. </ref>
##Read the entire parsha twice and then the Targum.<ref>Aruch HaShulchan 285:7 according to the simple understanding of “completing the parsha twice with Targum” and supports it from Rashi and Or Zaruah. Torat [[Shabbat]] 285 writes that such was the minhag of Mahara MeBalaza. Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) writes in name of the Steipler that there’s no difference between methods 2 and 3. Mishmeret Shalom 24:33 writes that his father and grandfather had the practice to read the [[Shenayim Mikra]] from the Torah and since it was difficult to interrupt between each pasuk to read Targum (and then have to find the place again), they read the entire Parsha twice and then Targum. </ref>
#Some say that it’s Lechatchila to go like the first practice of reading it pasuk by pasuk,<ref>S”A HaRav 285:3, Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 301-2), and Dvar Yom BeYomo (Cheshvan) write that Lechatchila one should follow the Arizal to read it pasuk by pasuk. However, if there isn’t a lot of time, one can follow the other methods. </ref> and some say that one can follow any of the above practices as one wishes.<ref>Aruch HaShulchan 285:7 writes this regarding all three practices, while Mishna Brurah 285:2 writes this regarding the first two practices. </ref>
#One shouldn’t read Targum first and then the pasuk twice, but rather at least one reading of the pasuk should come at the end.<ref>Mishna Brurah 285:6 says one shouldn’t say targum and then the pasuk twice. [[Seder]] Hayom (pg 21a) writes that one who reads [[Shenayim Mikra]] in this order doesn’t fulfill the obligation. </ref>
##Bedieved, if one did the pasuk, Targum and then the pasuk again, he fulfills his obligation.<ref>Kiseh Eliyahu 285:1, Kaf HaChaim 285:6 say one shouldn’t say the pasuk, targum, and then the pasuk. On the other hand, the Levush writes that one is allowed to fulfill one reading of mikra by listening to the Torah reading. The Lechem Chamudot (on Rosh [[Brachot]] 41) writes that it’s clear from the Levush that the order Bedieved was to read it once with the pesukim, once with the targum and then again with the pesukim. The Lechem Chamudot is brought as Halacha in Mishna Brurah (Shaare Tzion 285:10), Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 16:18, Sh”t Beir Moshe 8:3, Sh”t Rivivot Efraim 5:216 all holding that it’s Bedieved. Nonetheless, Shulchan Lechem HaPanim (Vol 5 pg 139), Yesodei Yishurun (Erev [[Shabbat]]), Meon Bracha ([[Brachot]] 8b; in name of Tosfot [[Yom Tov]]) and perhaps Aruch HaShulchan 285:3. The practice of the Chazon Ish (Bekkurei Chaim pg 79 and Derech Sichah by Rav Chaim Kanievsky pg. 2) was to read the pasuk, targum, and then pasuk again because he felt that the targum helped him understand the pasuk better the second time. </ref>
##Lechatchila, one should read a pasuk twice and then it’s Targum, but if one read the whole parsha first and then the Targum, one has fulfilled his obligation.<ref>Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 301-2) and Shu"t Yechave Daat 2:37. Sefer Itim pg 244 says one should read it pasuk by pasuk. Leket yosher pg 54 says if one doesn’t have targum he can read the whole parsha twice and do targum when he finds Targum. Shelah writes that some read it pasuk by pasuk and some read the whole parsha twice and then the Targum and he prefers reading one paragraph at a time and then doing the Targum on that. So was the practice of the Gra (HaMaaseh Rav 60). However the Arizal (Shaare Kavanot 62a) would read it pasuk by pasuk. Magen Avraham 285:1, Maharam MeRutenberg (Pesakim VeMinahgim, Mehura HaRav Kahana pg 217), and Chida in Machzik Bracha 285:10 agree.</ref>
#One should repeat the last pasuk again after finishing the targum in order to end with mikra.<ref>Magen Avraham 285:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11, Aruch HaShulchan 285:6, [http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5772/shemos.html Rabbi Nuestadt in Weekly Halachic Discussions] </ref> Some have the practice to repeat the last pasuk of the parsha twice without Targum (after having finished the whole parsha Shnayim Mikrah V'Echad Targum).<ref>Kaf Hachaim Palagi 27:3, Chida in Morah BeEtzba 4:131</ref>

===Reading with Te'amim (Trop)===

#One should read the Torah with the tune of Torah reading,<ref>Chida in Machazik Beracha 285:8, Yechave Daat 2:37, Kaf Hachaim 132:6 </ref> but Targum shouldn’t be read with a tune.<ref>Yechave Daat 2:37, Chida in Machazik Beracha 285:7, Kaf Hachaim 132:6 </ref>
##One fulfills his obligation bedieved if he read it without a tune.<ref>Sh”t Torah Lishma 406, Kaf Hachaim 132:6, 285:12-13, in 285:4 he writes in name of [[Maggid]] Mesharim one should say it slowly and carefully. Sh”t Teshuvot Vehanhagot 2:204 says bedieved one fulfills his obligation.</ref>
#Someone who owns a Sefer Torah and knows how to read it with the tune and pronunciations, should read it from a Sefer Torah. If one doesn’t know the correct way to read it well, it’s preferable to read it from a Chumash that has Tamim and Nekudot.<ref>Chazon Ovadya ([[Shabbat]] 1 pg 302-3)</ref>

===Positioning and Focus===

#One is allowed to read Shnayim Mikrah while seated.<ref>Pri Megadim (M”Z 690:1, Bikkurei Chaim 3:11 </ref>
#If possible, it's good not to interrupt when reading Shnayim Mikrah, and a pious person should be strict about this.<ref>Mishna Brurah 285:6 writes if it's possible it's good not to interrupt when reading Shnayim Mikrah and a pious person should be strict about this. Kaf Hachaim 285:15 quotes this in the name of the Mekubalim and adds that if one is very thirsty one may interrupt to drink with a bracha before and after.
Kaf HaChaim Palagi 27:4 writes that in middle of Shnayim Mikrah one may not interrupt to talk even in Hebrew.</ref> Some allowed interrupting to answer a question.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman in Halichot Shlomo ([[Tefillah]], chap 12, note 105) would interrupt reading Shnayim Mikrah in order to answer a question because that entails the mitzvah of Chesed. He adds that Shnayim Mikrah isn't different than other Talmud Torah which may be interrupted in certain situations such as a passing mitzvah. </ref>

==When Should it Be Read==
===Days of the Week===

#Some have the practice to read a little bit every day and complete it on [[Shabbat]] day.<ref>Talmedei Rabbenu Yonah 4b s.v. LeOlam writes that some had the practice to read a little every day and complete it by [[Shabbat]]. This is brought as Halacha by the Aruch HaShulchan 285:1. See also Mishna Brurah 285:8 citing the practice of the Gra to read a little bit of shnayim mikrah every day right after shacharit, finishing on erev shabbat. </ref>

===During [[Kriyat HaTorah]]===

#Some say that one is allowed to read the Shenayim Mikra during Torah reading even if one is reading a different section of the parsha than the Shliach Tzibbur.<ref>(a) The Shibolei HaLeket in the name of his Rabbi, and Hagahot Maimon in name of the Maharam, say that one shouldn’t read along with the Torah reading but rather just listen. This is the opinion of the Magen Avraham 146:5 in name of the Shlah, Kitzur Shlah (pg 81b), Pri Chadash (quoted by Mishna Brurah 146:15), Eliyah Zuta (285:4 in name of Shaar Gedolim), Kaf HaChaim (285:31) in name of Mahara Tuvina, and Gra (Maaseh Rav). (b) On the other hand, the Mordechai ([[Brachot]] 19), Hagahot Ashurei ([[Brachot]] 1:7) in name of Or Zaruah (1:11), Smak 155, Hagahot Maimon ([[Tefillah]] 12:7) hold that one is allowed to read [[Shenayim Mikra]] while the tzibbur is reading the parsha. Accordingly, S”A 285:5 rules that one is allowed to read Shnayim Mikra during Torah reading even if one is reading a section of the parsha that the shaliach isn’t currently reading. The Eliyah Rabba says that one should follow this approach even lechatchila, while the rest of the achronim (including Maamer Mordechai 285:3 and Beiur Halacha 285 s.v. Yachol) argue that it’s only Bedieved or BeShaat HaDachak. (c) Mishna Brurah 285:14 suggests that one can be lenient to read along with the Shaliach Tzibbur word by word and fulfill one time of Mikra with this. The Levush 285:5 and Perisha 285:1 (explaining the Bet Yosef and Rambam) agree that this is a valid method. This is also the opinion of the Mateh Moshe (quoted by Magen Avraham 146:5) even lechatchila. Similarly, the Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) in says that the minhag of the Stiepler was to read it once on Friday afternoon and once with the Bal Koreh. However, Sh”t Yechave Daat 2:37 and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 42:51 writes that only if a person doesn’t have time one is allowed to read it word by word with the Shliach Tzibbur. </ref>
#All agree that one is allowed to read Shenayim Mikra between Aliyot.<ref>Mishna Brurah 285:14 writes that even the stringent opinions about reading the Shenayim along with the Bal Koreh, allow one to read [[Shenayim Mikra]] between Aliyot. Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) writes the minhag of the Stiepler was to read it once on Friday afternoon, once with the Bal Koreh, and the Targum in between aliyot. </ref>
#Some say that one fulfills one’s obligation by listening to the Torah reading. However, others hold that one doesn’t fulfill his obligation even Bedieved. Therefore one shouldn't only listen to the Bal Koreh, but rather should read along word by word.<ref>The Magen Avraham 285:8, Chaye Adam 7:9, Shulchan Ha[[Shabbat]] 60, Shitilei Zaytim 285:10 write that Bedieved one fulfilled one’s obligation by simply listening to the Bal Koreh. However, the Bet Yosef (D”H Katuv BeHagot) and Rambam ([[Tefillah]] 13:25) hold that by listening one doesn’t fulfill his obligation. Therefore, S”A HaRav 285:8 writes that one should rely on this only BeShaat HaDachak. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=208665 Rav Dovid Yosef (min 16)] said that some years his father, Rav Ovadia, would read along with the baal koreh because he didn't have any free time. The Lechem Chamudot (Perek 1 Seif Katan 39) writes that even according to the Beit Yosef and the Rambam one could fulfill his obligation by just listening to the Baal Koreh, it just isn't recommended because it is hard to focus for so long if one is just listening. Instead of just listening one is allowed to read along word by word. </ref>
#One is allowed to read the Shenayim Mikra along with the Shliach Tzibbur during Torah reading word by word and fulfill one’s obligation. Some say that this is Lechatchila, while others hold that this is only for Shat HaDachak.<ref>Perisha writes that by reading the parsha word by word with the Shliach Tzibbur one fulfills one time of reading the parsha. This is brought as Halacha in Aruch HaShulchan 285:3. </ref>
#Some say that one fulfills his obligation with listening to someone else read Shenayim Mikra.<ref>Shaarei Teshuva 285:6 quotes the Radvaz who says that listening to someone else read [[Shenayim Mikra]] fulfills the obligation if one had kavana for the words. </ref>

==Earliest and Latest Time==

#One can begin to read the weekly Parsha once the congregation (Tzibbur) read the Parsha at [[Shabbat]] [[Mincha]]. <ref>Rama (Darchei Moshe 285:1) quotes a dispute between the Mordechai who says one can begin to read [[Shenayim Mikra]] from [[mincha]] of [[Shabbat]] when the congregation begins to read that parsha and the Kol Bo who argues that one can not read it then because earlier that day the congregation read the previous parsha. S”A 285:3 writes that one can start on Sunday. Shulchan Aruch Harav 285:5 and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11 agree. The Mishna Brurah 285:7 explains that the language of Shulchan Aruch is imprecise and really one is permitted to start once the Tzibbur began reading the Parsha at [[Shabbat]] [[Mincha]]. Shaar HaTziyun 285:12 notes that the opinion of the Kol Bo is a minority opinion. Kaf HaChaim 285:24 seems to agree. See Sh”t Yaskil Avdi O”C 5:39 and Sh”t Asse Lecha Rav 7:16. </ref>
#Some have the practice to do the [[Shenayim Mikrah]] on Friday afternoon.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:11 writes that ideally one should read [[Shenayim Mikra]] on Friday afternoon. Orchot Rabbenu (pg 123) writes the minhag of the Stiepler was to read it once on Friday afternoon and once with the Bal Koreh. </ref>
#One should finish Shenayim Mikra V'Echad Targum by [[Shabbat]] lunch. <ref>Chayei Adam [[Shabbos]] 7:9, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 285:5, Aruch Hashulchan 285:8, Mishna Brurah 285:9 and Beiur Halacha "yashlim." The Shla quoted by the Magen Avraham 285:5-6 and the Arizal quoted by the Shaare Teshuva 285:1 say that one should finish by friday. </ref> If one didn’t complete it by lunch time one shouldn't delay lunch for Shnayim Mikrah rather one should finish it by [[Mincha]] of [[Shabbat]]. If one didn’t complete it by then one can fulfill it until Tuesday night. Some hold one can even complete it by that year’s Shemini Esret.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 285:4, Mishna Brurah 285:9. See Kaf Chaim Palagi 27:4, Ben Ish Chai Lech Lecha 14. There are many opinions as to what is meant by until [[mincha]].
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo, [[Tefilla]] 12:35) and Rav Chaim Kanievsky (quoted in Halichot Chaim v. 1, p. 95) say that one can recite it until he prays [[mincha]].
*Shmirat [[Shabbat]] Kihilchata (2:42:footnote 218) says you can say it until the time of [[mincha]] gedola. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=208665 Rav Dovid Yosef (min 13)] recorded this opinion from Rav Elyashiv and agreed with it.
*Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh (Ketzot Hashulchan 72: Badei Hashulchan 7) says you can recite it until [[mincha]] is recited in the shul.
*The Chazon Ish (cited in Orchos Rabbeinu 3: page 234) held that you should finish by the time you eat seudat shlishit.</ref>
#The Shenayim Mikra V'Echad Targum of Parshat Vezot Habracha should be read on [[Hoshana Rabba]]. However, if one read it on Shemini Esret one also fulfills the obligation. <ref>The Chida in Birkei Yosef 285:4, Ben Ish Chai (Vezot Habracha 1:15), and Mishna Brurah 285:18 write that while it's preferable to read the [[Shenayim Mikra]] of Vezot HaBracha on [[Hoshana Rabba]], it may also be read on [[Shemini Aseret]]. The Piskei Teshuvot 285:4 quotes the Sh"t Kaneh Bosem 1:16 who holds that if one read it prior to [[Hoshana Rabba]] one hasn't fulfilled his obligation. However, the Dvir Hakadosh (Siman 23:4, p. 124) argues that according to Tosfot one should be able to read it from the first time we read it on [[Shabbat]] [[mincha]]. </ref>
#Someone for whom it’s difficult to read it on Friday or [[Shabbat]] have those to rely to say it Friday night.<ref>Sh”t Yabia Omer O”C 6:30(5), Sh"t Yitzchak Yiranen 1:29. </ref>
#If one misses a week one should read the previous Parsha's Shenayim Mikra and then the current week's Parsha. <ref>Sh”t Bear Moshe 5:79 writes that if one misses a week one should read the previous Parsha's [[Shenayim Mikra]] and then the current weeks Parsha. Rav Shlomo Zalman in Halichot Shlomo ([[Tefillah]] 12:36), Ketzos haShulchan 72:9, Chazon Ovadyah ([[Shabbat]], vol 1, pg 314), and [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2057 Daily Halacha (by Rabbi Mansour)] agree. However, Sh”t Yitzchak Yiranen 1:32 says one can make up a parsha out of order. Halichot Shlomo ([[Tefillah]] 12:37) adds that if one did begin the current week's parsha before one finished the previous one, one may finish it.</ref> Some say one should do the current parshas before making up for the previous one.<ref>Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in a shiur. The rationale provided is that it isn't clear whether the operating principle is to compete them in the correct order, or whether making up the missed week is similar to the rule of ''tashlumim'' for a missed prayer (where the current prayer must be completed prior to the makeup prayer). Further, the basic rules is to complete the personal reading concurrently with the public reading; this may apply on a weekly or annual basis.</ref>

==Links==

*Ten Minute Halacha on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/749358/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-shnayim-mikra/ Shnayim Mikra] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz
*Article on [http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/265848/halachic-analysis-shnayim-mikra-vechad-targum.html Shnayim Mikra V'Echad Targum] by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
*Sefer Dedicated to the [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/51001 Halachos of Shenayim Mikra]
*A Beautifully Laid Out Format for [https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Rashi/Bereshit/1.1#m7e0n6 Learning Shenayim Mikra Online at AlHaTorah.org]

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
[[Category:Learning Torah]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Washing one’s body on Shabbat

2024-08-22T02:42:16Z

Gsilver2:

{{Okay}}
[[File:Showering on shabbat.jpg|thumb]]
There are a few potential concerns with showering on shabbat, including a decree not to bathe in hot water lest one heat up water on shabbat (bishul), a concern lest one carry water 4 amot in a public domain (hotza'a), a concern lest one squeeze out their hair or the towel (sechita), and a concern lest one build a flotation device (boneh).

==Showering on Shabbat==
===Hot Water===
# One may not wash one's entire body<ref>The Gemara Shabbat 39b cites a debate in the tanaim regarding bathing in hot water on shabbat. Rebbe Meir thinks that one may not wash their entire body with even cold water. Rebbe Shimon thinks that one may wash their entire body even with hot water. Rebbe Yehudah splits, and holds that one may wash their entire body with cold water but not with hot water. The concern here is seemingly that if we allow bathing in hot water on shabbat, one may come to heat up the water on shabbat, thereby violating bishul. The gemara 40a cites a debate between rav and shmuel regarding bathing in hot water that was heated up before shabbat. Rav holds that one may wash their entire body in it, but only limb by limb. Shmuel disagrees and thinks that one may only wash their face, hands, and feet, but not their entire body (even limb by limb). Presumably, both opinions are within Rebbe Meir / Rebbe Yehudah, who prohibit bathing in hot water on shabbat, and the amoraim are debating the parameters of this prohibition (i.e. does it even extend to washing limb by limb or not).

*The Rambam hilchot shabbat 22:2 paskens like shmuel, and the Maggid Mishnah explains that this is because the gemara cites a beraita to support shmuel, and so the general rule of hilcheta k'rav b'isuri doesn't apply here. The Shulchan Aruch 326:1 follows suit.</ref> or even a majority of one's body<ref>Mishna Brurah 326:2 (citing the Magen Avraham 326:2) says that the same prohibition is true for more than half of the body. Shemirat Shabbos Kihilchita 14:1, Aruch Hashulchan 326:2, Kitzur S”A 86:1 and Yalkut Yosef 326:1 agree.</ref> in hot water on [[Shabbat]], even if the water was heated before [[Shabbat]], and even if he does one body-part at a time. The same is true of pouring hot water over oneself.
## Many water heaters or boilers are made such that when hot water is removed, cold water is automatically added. If this is the case, it’s forbidden to remove hot water from the water heater, even if the water heater is turned off, because doing so will cause cold water to enter the tank and heat up (which entails a violation of [[bishul]]).<ref> Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 1:39 </ref>
===Cold Water===
# The Sephardic custom is to allow showering in cold water on Shabbat.<ref> As noted above, this seems to be the halacha based on the gemara, and codified in Shulchan Aruch 326:1. Yalkut Yosef 326:3 says that it is permissible to shower in cold water on Shabbat, but one should be careful not to squeeze water out of his hair or his towel. Livyat Chen pg. 123, Rabbi Eli Mansour, and Kaf Hachaim 326:25 agree. </ref>
# Many Ashkenazim have the custom not to shower even in cold water.<ref>Magen Avraham 326:8, based on the Maharil 139, says that one should not wash in a mikveh or river (even in cold water) because one may come to squeeze water out of his hair or towel or one may come to carry the drops of water on his body for 4 amot. Mishna Brurah 326:21 agrees. Shoneh Halachot 6 writes in the name of the Chazon Ish that the same is true of showers. Minchat Yitzchak 6:32 agrees. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe 4:74-75) agrees that this is the minhag, but is lenient in case of tzaar such as a sick person or a heat wave. Shemirat Shabbos Kihilchita 14:11, Ketzot Hashulchan 137:8 and Sh”t Beer Moshe 6:73 agree. Biur Halacha 326:1 s.v. bimayim quotes Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 307:5 and 326:1) saying that one can bathe even in water heated before Shabbat if he is suffering. Rav Schachter (end of Gemara Shabbos Shiur 57) says that the minhag nowadays is to allow showering in cold water on Shabbat.</ref>

==Washing Hands, Feet, and Face==
# One may use water that was heated before Shabbat to wash his hands, feet, and face. The same is true of washing any other body part, as long as one doesn’t wash majority of his body.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 326:1 writes that one could wash his hands, feet, or face in water heated up before Shabbat. Rama adds that the same would be true for any body part as long as one doesn’t wash majority of his body. Yalkut Yosef (Siman 326 no. 2) says that really Rav Yosef Karo agrees in the Beit Yosef and in the Shulchan Aruch was only copying the language of the gemara. Mishna Brurah 326:5 writes that this is talking about water heated up before Shabbat, because if it was heated on Shabbat then you cannot use it for anything. </ref>
## There is a debate regarding the halachic status of water heated up permissibly on shabbat.<ref>Biur Gra 326:12 writes that water heated up permissibly on Shabbat (e.g. heated to less than yad soledet bo) is considered like water heated up before Shabbat, and one may wash their hands, feet, and face. However, Magen Avraham 326:6 and Aruch Hashulchan 326:2 disagree, and treat it like water heated up on shabbat, which is totally prohibited to wash with. Nevertheless, Iggerot Moshe 1:126 writes that if a goy heats up water for himself, the Jew may use it for washing less than majority of his body. Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 14:2 is strict if the water was heated up with an action, but in 14:3 is lenient if the water was heated up on its own, such as if they were placed on the fire before Shabbat or with solar energy.</ref>
# If one’s hands became soiled with mud, one may not clean them off by wiping them on a towel or handkerchief.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 22:19 explains that we are concerned that one may launder the towel after using it wipe off the dirt, and therefore it is prohibited to wipe off the dirt. Shulchan Aruch 302:11 paskens this l'halacha.</ref> However, one may wipe them on a cloth which one isn’t concerned about cleaning (like a napkin).<ref>Mishna Brurah 302:57, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 14:26 </ref>

==Squeezing water from one's hair==
See [[Dosh#Squeezing Water Out of One's Hair]]

==Swimming on Shabbat==
# One should try to avoid swimming on [[Shabbat]], even in a pool in their backyard.<ref> *Yalkut Yosef [[Shabbat]] vol. 2 pg. 7. see also Chayei Adam 44:20, Sh"t Yaskil Avdi 6:1, Sh"t Minchat Yitzchak 6:32, Sh"t Beer Moshe 3:56, Sh"t Yeshuot Yaakov 3:25.
*One factor that makes a cold pool somewhat different from a cold bath (for sefardim, who permit showering / bathing in cold water), is the sugya in beitza 36b. The mishna there says that one may not float/swim on top of the water on shabbat (וְלֹא שָׁטִין עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם), and the gemara explains that chazal were concerned that you might build a makeshift flotation device (גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה חָבִית שֶׁל שַׁיָּיטִין). Rashi explains that this would be for the purpose of learning how to swim, but the Piskei Rid (cited in Dirshu Mishna Berurah 339:2 footnote 2) explains that it would be to prevent oneself from drowning. The Gemara shabbat 41a distinguishes between a body of water that has a lip/wall surrounding it and a body of water which doesn't have a lip/wall, in that the gezeira was only ever stated in this latter case. Rashi explains that chazal's decree not to swim lest one build a flotation device, was only ever stated by a river/lake, but not by a kli (utensil), and so if the body of water has a lip/wall then it's like a kli and so there's no concern. However, the Rif explains that if there's a lip/wall to the body of water, then if one splashes water outwards, it will be "caught" by that lip/wall, and won't actually leave the pool. According to the Rif, then, it's possible that even modern swimming pools wouldn't be considered to have a lip/wall of the type necessary to permit bathing in them, since they don't prevent the water from leaving the pool if splashed (unless they're high above the pool water level).
*For a discussion of the potential halachic issues with swimming on shabbat, see Rav Aryeh Leibowitz shiur linked [https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/1101650/From-The-Rabbi's-DeskSwimming-on-Shabbos-in-North-Woodmere?! here].</ref>

==Entering a Bathhouse==
# One may not enter a bathhouse, even to sweat in a steam-room or the like. Some poskim say that one may not even enter for some reason other than steaming, such as to remove an item, if it is inevitable that one will come to sweat.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 326:12 says based on the Gemara Shabbos 40a that one shouldn’t enter a bathhouse to sweat. Rama there adds that some hold that it’s asur to enter the bathhouse even if it’s for another reason, if he might sweat. Mishna Brura 326:35-36 says that according to that opinion it would be asur even if unintended but according to the Shulchan Aruch it would be permitted. Kaf Hachaim 326:55 says that though according to Shulchan Aruch one could be lenient, one should be strict if possible. Yalkut Yosef 326:9 is lenient as long as one doesn’t intend to sweat. 
</ref>
==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

File:Showering on shabbat.jpg

2024-08-22T02:38:20Z

Gsilver2:

Washing one’s body on Shabbat

2024-08-22T02:32:45Z

Gsilver2: /* Swimming on Shabbat */

{{Okay}}
==Showering on Shabbat==
===Hot Water===
# One may not wash one's entire body<ref>The Gemara Shabbat 39b cites a debate in the tanaim regarding bathing in hot water on shabbat. Rebbe Meir thinks that one may not wash their entire body with even cold water. Rebbe Shimon thinks that one may wash their entire body even with hot water. Rebbe Yehudah splits, and holds that one may wash their entire body with cold water but not with hot water. The concern here is seemingly that if we allow bathing in hot water on shabbat, one may come to heat up the water on shabbat, thereby violating bishul. The gemara 40a cites a debate between rav and shmuel regarding bathing in hot water that was heated up before shabbat. Rav holds that one may wash their entire body in it, but only limb by limb. Shmuel disagrees and thinks that one may only wash their face, hands, and feet, but not their entire body (even limb by limb). Presumably, both opinions are within Rebbe Meir / Rebbe Yehudah, who prohibit bathing in hot water on shabbat, and the amoraim are debating the parameters of this prohibition (i.e. does it even extend to washing limb by limb or not).

*The Rambam hilchot shabbat 22:2 paskens like shmuel, and the Maggid Mishnah explains that this is because the gemara cites a beraita to support shmuel, and so the general rule of hilcheta k'rav b'isuri doesn't apply here. The Shulchan Aruch 326:1 follows suit.</ref> or even a majority of one's body<ref>Mishna Brurah 326:2 (citing the Magen Avraham 326:2) says that the same prohibition is true for more than half of the body. Shemirat Shabbos Kihilchita 14:1, Aruch Hashulchan 326:2, Kitzur S”A 86:1 and Yalkut Yosef 326:1 agree.</ref> in hot water on [[Shabbat]], even if the water was heated before [[Shabbat]], and even if he does one body-part at a time. The same is true of pouring hot water over oneself.
## Many water heaters or boilers are made such that when hot water is removed, cold water is automatically added. If this is the case, it’s forbidden to remove hot water from the water heater, even if the water heater is turned off, because doing so will cause cold water to enter the tank and heat up (which entails a violation of [[bishul]]).<ref> Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 1:39 </ref>
===Cold Water===
# The Sephardic custom is to allow showering in cold water on Shabbat.<ref> As noted above, this seems to be the halacha based on the gemara, and codified in Shulchan Aruch 326:1. Yalkut Yosef 326:3 says that it is permissible to shower in cold water on Shabbat, but one should be careful not to squeeze water out of his hair or his towel. Livyat Chen pg. 123, Rabbi Eli Mansour, and Kaf Hachaim 326:25 agree. </ref>
# Many Ashkenazim have the custom not to shower even in cold water.<ref>Magen Avraham 326:8, based on the Maharil 139, says that one should not wash in a mikveh or river (even in cold water) because one may come to squeeze water out of his hair or towel or one may come to carry the drops of water on his body for 4 amot. Mishna Brurah 326:21 agrees. Shoneh Halachot 6 writes in the name of the Chazon Ish that the same is true of showers. Minchat Yitzchak 6:32 agrees. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe 4:74-75) agrees that this is the minhag, but is lenient in case of tzaar such as a sick person or a heat wave. Shemirat Shabbos Kihilchita 14:11, Ketzot Hashulchan 137:8 and Sh”t Beer Moshe 6:73 agree. Biur Halacha 326:1 s.v. bimayim quotes Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 307:5 and 326:1) saying that one can bathe even in water heated before Shabbat if he is suffering. Rav Schachter (end of Gemara Shabbos Shiur 57) says that the minhag nowadays is to allow showering in cold water on Shabbat.</ref>

==Washing Hands, Feet, and Face==
# One may use water that was heated before Shabbat to wash his hands, feet, and face. The same is true of washing any other body part, as long as one doesn’t wash majority of his body.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 326:1 writes that one could wash his hands, feet, or face in water heated up before Shabbat. Rama adds that the same would be true for any body part as long as one doesn’t wash majority of his body. Yalkut Yosef (Siman 326 no. 2) says that really Rav Yosef Karo agrees in the Beit Yosef and in the Shulchan Aruch was only copying the language of the gemara. Mishna Brurah 326:5 writes that this is talking about water heated up before Shabbat, because if it was heated on Shabbat then you cannot use it for anything. </ref>
## There is a debate regarding the halachic status of water heated up permissibly on shabbat.<ref>Biur Gra 326:12 writes that water heated up permissibly on Shabbat (e.g. heated to less than yad soledet bo) is considered like water heated up before Shabbat, and one may wash their hands, feet, and face. However, Magen Avraham 326:6 and Aruch Hashulchan 326:2 disagree, and treat it like water heated up on shabbat, which is totally prohibited to wash with. Nevertheless, Iggerot Moshe 1:126 writes that if a goy heats up water for himself, the Jew may use it for washing less than majority of his body. Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 14:2 is strict if the water was heated up with an action, but in 14:3 is lenient if the water was heated up on its own, such as if they were placed on the fire before Shabbat or with solar energy.</ref>
# If one’s hands became soiled with mud, one may not clean them off by wiping them on a towel or handkerchief.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 22:19 explains that we are concerned that one may launder the towel after using it wipe off the dirt, and therefore it is prohibited to wipe off the dirt. Shulchan Aruch 302:11 paskens this l'halacha.</ref> However, one may wipe them on a cloth which one isn’t concerned about cleaning (like a napkin).<ref>Mishna Brurah 302:57, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 14:26 </ref>

==Squeezing water from one's hair==
See [[Dosh#Squeezing Water Out of One's Hair]]

==Swimming on Shabbat==
# One should try to avoid swimming on [[Shabbat]], even in a pool in their backyard.<ref> *Yalkut Yosef [[Shabbat]] vol. 2 pg. 7. see also Chayei Adam 44:20, Sh"t Yaskil Avdi 6:1, Sh"t Minchat Yitzchak 6:32, Sh"t Beer Moshe 3:56, Sh"t Yeshuot Yaakov 3:25.
*One factor that makes a cold pool somewhat different from a cold bath (for sefardim, who permit showering / bathing in cold water), is the sugya in beitza 36b. The mishna there says that one may not float/swim on top of the water on shabbat (וְלֹא שָׁטִין עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם), and the gemara explains that chazal were concerned that you might build a makeshift flotation device (גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה חָבִית שֶׁל שַׁיָּיטִין). Rashi explains that this would be for the purpose of learning how to swim, but the Piskei Rid (cited in Dirshu Mishna Berurah 339:2 footnote 2) explains that it would be to prevent oneself from drowning. The Gemara shabbat 41a distinguishes between a body of water that has a lip/wall surrounding it and a body of water which doesn't have a lip/wall, in that the gezeira was only ever stated in this latter case. Rashi explains that chazal's decree not to swim lest one build a flotation device, was only ever stated by a river/lake, but not by a kli (utensil), and so if the body of water has a lip/wall then it's like a kli and so there's no concern. However, the Rif explains that if there's a lip/wall to the body of water, then if one splashes water outwards, it will be "caught" by that lip/wall, and won't actually leave the pool. According to the Rif, then, it's possible that even modern swimming pools wouldn't be considered to have a lip/wall of the type necessary to permit bathing in them, since they don't prevent the water from leaving the pool if splashed (unless they're high above the pool water level).
*For a discussion of the potential halachic issues with swimming on shabbat, see Rav Aryeh Leibowitz shiur linked [https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/1101650/From-The-Rabbi's-DeskSwimming-on-Shabbos-in-North-Woodmere?! here].</ref>

==Entering a Bathhouse==
# One may not enter a bathhouse, even to sweat in a steam-room or the like. Some poskim say that one may not even enter for some reason other than steaming, such as to remove an item, if it is inevitable that one will come to sweat.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 326:12 says based on the Gemara Shabbos 40a that one shouldn’t enter a bathhouse to sweat. Rama there adds that some hold that it’s asur to enter the bathhouse even if it’s for another reason, if he might sweat. Mishna Brura 326:35-36 says that according to that opinion it would be asur even if unintended but according to the Shulchan Aruch it would be permitted. Kaf Hachaim 326:55 says that though according to Shulchan Aruch one could be lenient, one should be strict if possible. Yalkut Yosef 326:9 is lenient as long as one doesn’t intend to sweat. 
</ref>
==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Washing one’s body on Shabbat

2024-08-21T12:59:07Z

Gsilver2: /* Showering on Shabbat */

{{Okay}}
==Showering on Shabbat==
===Hot Water===
# One may not wash one's entire body<ref>The Gemara Shabbat 39b cites a debate in the tanaim regarding bathing in hot water on shabbat. Rebbe Meir thinks that one may not wash their entire body with even cold water. Rebbe Shimon thinks that one may wash their entire body even with hot water. Rebbe Yehudah splits, and holds that one may wash their entire body with cold water but not with hot water. The concern here is seemingly that if we allow bathing in hot water on shabbat, one may come to heat up the water on shabbat, thereby violating bishul. The gemara 40a cites a debate between rav and shmuel regarding bathing in hot water that was heated up before shabbat. Rav holds that one may wash their entire body in it, but only limb by limb. Shmuel disagrees and thinks that one may only wash their face, hands, and feet, but not their entire body (even limb by limb). Presumably, both opinions are within Rebbe Meir / Rebbe Yehudah, who prohibit bathing in hot water on shabbat, and the amoraim are debating the parameters of this prohibition (i.e. does it even extend to washing limb by limb or not).

*The Rambam hilchot shabbat 22:2 paskens like shmuel, and the Maggid Mishnah explains that this is because the gemara cites a beraita to support shmuel, and so the general rule of hilcheta k'rav b'isuri doesn't apply here. The Shulchan Aruch 326:1 follows suit.</ref> or even a majority of one's body<ref>Mishna Brurah 326:2 (citing the Magen Avraham 326:2) says that the same prohibition is true for more than half of the body. Shemirat Shabbos Kihilchita 14:1, Aruch Hashulchan 326:2, Kitzur S”A 86:1 and Yalkut Yosef 326:1 agree.</ref> in hot water on [[Shabbat]], even if the water was heated before [[Shabbat]], and even if he does one body-part at a time. The same is true of pouring hot water over oneself.
## Many water heaters or boilers are made such that when hot water is removed, cold water is automatically added. If this is the case, it’s forbidden to remove hot water from the water heater, even if the water heater is turned off, because doing so will cause cold water to enter the tank and heat up (which entails a violation of [[bishul]]).<ref> Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 1:39 </ref>
===Cold Water===
# The Sephardic custom is to allow showering in cold water on Shabbat.<ref> As noted above, this seems to be the halacha based on the gemara, and codified in Shulchan Aruch 326:1. Yalkut Yosef 326:3 says that it is permissible to shower in cold water on Shabbat, but one should be careful not to squeeze water out of his hair or his towel. Livyat Chen pg. 123, Rabbi Eli Mansour, and Kaf Hachaim 326:25 agree. </ref>
# Many Ashkenazim have the custom not to shower even in cold water.<ref>Magen Avraham 326:8, based on the Maharil 139, says that one should not wash in a mikveh or river (even in cold water) because one may come to squeeze water out of his hair or towel or one may come to carry the drops of water on his body for 4 amot. Mishna Brurah 326:21 agrees. Shoneh Halachot 6 writes in the name of the Chazon Ish that the same is true of showers. Minchat Yitzchak 6:32 agrees. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe 4:74-75) agrees that this is the minhag, but is lenient in case of tzaar such as a sick person or a heat wave. Shemirat Shabbos Kihilchita 14:11, Ketzot Hashulchan 137:8 and Sh”t Beer Moshe 6:73 agree. Biur Halacha 326:1 s.v. bimayim quotes Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 307:5 and 326:1) saying that one can bathe even in water heated before Shabbat if he is suffering. Rav Schachter (end of Gemara Shabbos Shiur 57) says that the minhag nowadays is to allow showering in cold water on Shabbat.</ref>

==Washing Hands, Feet, and Face==
# One may use water that was heated before Shabbat to wash his hands, feet, and face. The same is true of washing any other body part, as long as one doesn’t wash majority of his body.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 326:1 writes that one could wash his hands, feet, or face in water heated up before Shabbat. Rama adds that the same would be true for any body part as long as one doesn’t wash majority of his body. Yalkut Yosef (Siman 326 no. 2) says that really Rav Yosef Karo agrees in the Beit Yosef and in the Shulchan Aruch was only copying the language of the gemara. Mishna Brurah 326:5 writes that this is talking about water heated up before Shabbat, because if it was heated on Shabbat then you cannot use it for anything. </ref>
## There is a debate regarding the halachic status of water heated up permissibly on shabbat.<ref>Biur Gra 326:12 writes that water heated up permissibly on Shabbat (e.g. heated to less than yad soledet bo) is considered like water heated up before Shabbat, and one may wash their hands, feet, and face. However, Magen Avraham 326:6 and Aruch Hashulchan 326:2 disagree, and treat it like water heated up on shabbat, which is totally prohibited to wash with. Nevertheless, Iggerot Moshe 1:126 writes that if a goy heats up water for himself, the Jew may use it for washing less than majority of his body. Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 14:2 is strict if the water was heated up with an action, but in 14:3 is lenient if the water was heated up on its own, such as if they were placed on the fire before Shabbat or with solar energy.</ref>
# If one’s hands became soiled with mud, one may not clean them off by wiping them on a towel or handkerchief.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 22:19 explains that we are concerned that one may launder the towel after using it wipe off the dirt, and therefore it is prohibited to wipe off the dirt. Shulchan Aruch 302:11 paskens this l'halacha.</ref> However, one may wipe them on a cloth which one isn’t concerned about cleaning (like a napkin).<ref>Mishna Brurah 302:57, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 14:26 </ref>

==Squeezing water from one's hair==
See [[Dosh#Squeezing Water Out of One's Hair]]

==Swimming on Shabbat==
# One should try to avoid swimming on [[Shabbat]], even in a pool in their backyard.<ref> Yalkut Yosef [[Shabbat]] vol. 2 pg. 7. see also Chayei Adam 44:20, Sh"t Yaskil Avdi 6:1, Sh"t Minchat Yitzchak 6:32, Sh"t Beer Moshe 3:56, Sh"t Yeshuot Yaakov 3:25.

*One factor that makes a cold pool somewhat different from a cold bath (for sefardim, who permit showering / bathing in cold water), is the sugya in beitza 36b. The mishna there says that one may not float/swim on top of the water on shabbat (וְלֹא שָׁטִין עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם), and the gemara explains that chazal were concerned that you might build a makeshift flotation device (גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה חָבִית שֶׁל שַׁיָּיטִין). Rashi explains that this would be for the purpose of learning how to swim, but the Piskei Rid (cited in Dirshu Mishna Berurah 339:2 footnote 2) explains that it would be to prevent oneself from drowning. The Gemara shabbat 41a distinguishes between a body of water that has a lip/wall surrounding it (no gezeira) and a body of water which doesn't have a lip/wall (yes gezeira). Rashi explains that chazal's decree not to swim lest one build a flotation device, was only ever stated by a river/lake, but not by a kli (utensil), and so if the body of water has a lip/wall then it's like a kli and so there's no concern. </ref>

==Entering a Bathhouse==
# One may not enter a bathhouse even to sweat in a steam room or the like. Some poskim say that one may not even enter to for some reason other than bathing such as to remove an item, if he may come to sweat even if that isn’t his intention.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 326:12 says based on the Gemara Shabbos 40a that one shouldn’t enter a bathhouse to sweat. Rama there adds that some hold that it’s asur to enter the bathhouse even if it’s for another reason, if he might sweat. Mishna Brura 326:35-36 says that according to that opinion it would be asur even if unintended but according to the Shulchan Aruch it would be permitted. Kaf Hachaim 326:55 says that though according to Shulchan Aruch one could be lenient, one should be strict if possible. Yalkut Yosef 326:9 is lenient as long as one doesn’t intend to sweat. 
</ref>
==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Cosmetics

2024-08-21T12:19:16Z

Gsilver2: /* Powder */

{{Good}}
==Background==

#With so many new cosmetics on the market today, the question of using these products on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]] becomes very relevant. Some background information may shed some light on what the possible problems may be in regards to Hilchot [[Shabbos|Shabbat]]. One Melacha to be aware of, is the act of [[dyeing]] ([[Tzoveya]]), which was done to color the curtains of the Mishkan<ref>Rashi Parshas Terumah 25:5 D"h Meadamim</ref>, the second is the act of [[smoothing]] ([[Memachaik]]) which was done to finish the leather of the coverings of the Mishkan.
#While the biblical prohibition of [[dyeing]] is only something that will be colored permanently, there is still a Rabbinic prohibition on creating a temporary coloring effect. Therefore, cosmetics such as: rouges, lipsticks, eye shadow, and others which add color to the skin, albeit for a short amount of time, are still forbidden to use on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]].<ref>Rambam Hilchos [[Shabbos]] 22:23, S.A. 303:25, Mishna Brurah 303:79, Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Bar, Liquid, and Foam Soap==
{{Soap on Shabbat}}

==Cutting Nails or Hair==

#It is forbidden to cut nails or hair on [[shabbat]] or sever them in any way.<ref>S''A, Orach Chaim, 340.1 ''</ref>
#On the night of her tevila in the mikveh, a woman may have her nails cut by a non-Jew.<ref>Mishna Brura 340:3 quoting the Magen Avraham </ref>

==Lipstick==

#It is forbidden for a woman to apply lipstick on [[shabbat]].<ref>Yabia Omer 6.37, Igrot Mosher Orach Chaim 1.114, Menuchat Ahava 13.6 </ref>

==Powder==
#Some Poskim permit women applying non-sticky powder to their faces on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Rav Moshe (OC 5:27) writes that if the powder is dry and thus will only last for a short amount of time on the face, then there is no problem of tzoveah to use it on shabbat. Even though even temporary tzoveah (צביעה שאינה מתקיים) is typically prohibited midrabanan, Rav Moshe thought that this type of powder wasn't even permanent enough to reach that threshold, and therefore was completely permitted. </ref> However, other poskim forbid this act.<ref>See Dirshu Mishna Berurah (303:25 footnote 50), citing Rav Shlomo Zalmen and the Shevet Halevi to prohibit applying powder of any kind on shabbat. </ref> Nevertheless, all agree that applying sticky powder is forbidden.<ref>Yechave Daat 4.28, Menichat Ahava 13.7 </ref>
#It is forbidden to use makeup on Shabbat if it is lasting.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 303:25</ref>
# Putting on nail polish, even if it is clear, is forbidden.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 14 fnt. 167</ref>
# Rav Moshe Feinstein permitted putting on ordinary talcum powder and theoretically extended it to all colored powdered makeups. In practice, regarding specific makeups, he warned that the powdered makeups may not be made with a water or oil base and could not last for a long time.<ref>Igrot Moshe 1:114, 5:27, 6:25:1. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 14 fnt. 173 is strict.</ref> Many of his students forbid all powdered makeups on the market today because in practice they remain on the skin for a long time.<ref>[[Asicha_Hilchos_Shabbos_Part_2| Rav Mordechai Willig (Asicha Shabbos 2 p. 6)]], Rav Belsky in Shulchan Halevi 9:1, [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?a=114404 Rav Shmuel Fuerst (min 23-26)]</ref>

==Nail Varnish==

#It is forbidden to apply or remove nail varnish on [[shabbat]].<ref>Shmirat [[Shabbat]] Kehilchata 1.158, Yalkut Yosef 4.2.102 </ref>

==Combing Hair==

#Regarding combing one's hair on [[Shabbat]], see the [[Getting Dressed on Shabbat]] page.

==Braiding Hair==

#It is forbidden to braid hair on [[shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 303:26, based on gemara shabbat 94b </ref>

==Perfume==

#It is permitted to apply perfume onto the human body but it is forbidden to apply perfume onto clothing on [[shabbat]].<ref>Mishna Brurah 322:18, Shulchan Aruch 511:4. The reason for the prohibition of being molid reach (creating scent) in clothing is either because it's like creating a new entity, which is similar to an act of melacha (Mishna Brurah 511:27), or because it is like fixing the garment (tikun maneh) when one adds scent to it, which constitutes a violation of makeh b'patish (Mishna Brurah 658:7). </ref>

==Nail Polish==

#It is forbidden to use nail polish on [[Shabbat]], whether it is a colored nail polish or clear polish, as the shine adds a pleasant finish to the nail, and is enhancing the natural color of the nail, thus violating [[Tzovaya]].<ref>Shmiras [[Shabbos]] K'Hilchosa 14:footnote 152</ref>
##It is for this same reason that one would be prohibited from using whitening strips for teeth.
##It is also for this reason that one is prohibited from using fade creams that are of the same color as one's natural skin, even if it is being used just to cover up blemishes.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Sun-Tanning==

#Some Poskim go as far as to prohibit intentional suntanning, as this leaves a color on the skin, and thus may violate [[tzovaya]].<ref>Minchas Yitzchok 5:32</ref>
#It should be noted that not all Poskim concur with this ruling, and everyone holds that it is permitted to merely sit outside if there is no intention of tanning, even if one will be pleased with the results.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) </ref>

==Makeup Removal==

#While putting on makeup in most cases is forbidden, removing it is permitted. However, it is preferable to be use a disposable tissue, so as to avoid questions of coloring the cloth or towel being used.<ref>Mishna Brurah 320:59</ref> One should also avoid using nail polish remover.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (vol 3, chap 14, note 79)</ref>

==Smoothing Creams==

#Besides for the concern of [[tzoveah]] (coloring), when dealing with lotions there is also a concern of [[memachek]] ([[smoothing]]). Therefore, the use of lipstick or even non-colored chapstick are prohibited on shabbat.<ref>Igros Moshe O.C. 1:114</ref>
#Skin blemish concealers, hand creams (Nivea, Eucerin), Vaseline, rouge creams, moisturizers, lotions and the like are all prohibited under [[memachek]] as well.<ref>Rashi ([[Shabbos]] 146b D"h Mishchah), Rambam ([[Shabbat]] 13:11), Shulchan Aruch 314:11, Mishna Brurah 314:45, Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

=== Lotions ===
#As long as the lotion has a thin and pourable consistency, like that of oil,<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) quoting R' Nosson Kupshitz Shlita</ref> it would be permitted to use on shabbat [providing that it is not medicinal, as then one would have to ask a question regarding the [[refuah]] aspect].
##Therefore, one may apply most forms of sunblock lotion on an infant (or himself for that matter), as they are of very loose consistency.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) quoting R' Nosson Kupshitz Shlita</ref>

==Credits==

#Special thanks to Rabbi Heshy Kahn for this article.

==Common questions==

#Is it permissible to use Crest whitening strips on [[Shabbos]]? See above [[#Nail polish]].

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/826618/Rabbi_Uri_Orlian/Makeup_&_Cosmetics_on_Shabbos:_An_Introduction_to_the_Melacha_of_Memachek Makeup & Cosmetics on Shabbos] by Rabbi Orlian
*Article on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735694/Rabbi_Dr_J_David_Bleich/Cosmetic_Powder_on_Shabbat Cosmetic Powder on Shabbat] by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Cosmetics

2024-08-21T11:22:29Z

Gsilver2: /* Powder */

{{Good}}
==Background==

#With so many new cosmetics on the market today, the question of using these products on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]] becomes very relevant. Some background information may shed some light on what the possible problems may be in regards to Hilchot [[Shabbos|Shabbat]]. One Melacha to be aware of, is the act of [[dyeing]] ([[Tzoveya]]), which was done to color the curtains of the Mishkan<ref>Rashi Parshas Terumah 25:5 D"h Meadamim</ref>, the second is the act of [[smoothing]] ([[Memachaik]]) which was done to finish the leather of the coverings of the Mishkan.
#While the biblical prohibition of [[dyeing]] is only something that will be colored permanently, there is still a Rabbinic prohibition on creating a temporary coloring effect. Therefore, cosmetics such as: rouges, lipsticks, eye shadow, and others which add color to the skin, albeit for a short amount of time, are still forbidden to use on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]].<ref>Rambam Hilchos [[Shabbos]] 22:23, S.A. 303:25, Mishna Brurah 303:79, Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Bar, Liquid, and Foam Soap==
{{Soap on Shabbat}}

==Cutting Nails or Hair==

#It is forbidden to cut nails or hair on [[shabbat]] or sever them in any way.<ref>S''A, Orach Chaim, 340.1 ''</ref>
#On the night of her tevila in the mikveh, a woman may have her nails cut by a non-Jew.<ref>Mishna Brura 340:3 quoting the Magen Avraham </ref>

==Lipstick==

#It is forbidden for a woman to apply lipstick on [[shabbat]].<ref>Yabia Omer 6.37, Igrot Mosher Orach Chaim 1.114, Menuchat Ahava 13.6 </ref>

==Powder==
#Some Poskim permit women applying non-sticky powder to their faces on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Rav Moshe (OC 5:27) writes that if the powder is dry and thus will only last for a short amount of time on the face, then there is no problem of tzoveah to use it on shabbat. Even though even temporary tzoveah (צביעה שאינה מתקיים) is typically prohibited midrabanan, Rav Moshe thought that this type of powder wasn't even permanent enough to reach that threshold, and therefore was completely permitted. </ref> However, other poskim forbid this act.<ref>See Dirshu Mishna Berurah (303:25 footnote 50), citing Rav Shlomo Zalmen and the Shevet Halevi to prohibit applying powder of any kind on shabbat. </ref> Nevertheless, all agree that applying sticky powder is forbidden.<ref>Yechave Daat 4.28, Menichat Ahava 13.7 </ref>
#It is forbidden to use makeup on Shabbat if it is lasting.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 303:25</ref>
# Putting on nail polish, even if it is clear, is forbidden.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 14 fnt. 167</ref>
# Rav Moshe Feinstein permitted putting on ordinary talcum powder and theoretically extended it to all colored powdered makeups. In practice, regarding specific makeups, he warned that the powdered makeups may not be made with a water or oil base and could not last for a long time.<ref>Igrot Moshe 1:114, 5:27, 6:25:1. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 14 fnt. 173 is strict.</ref> Many of his students forbid all powdered makeups on the market today because in practice they remain on the skin for a long time.<ref>[[Asicha_Hilchos_Shabbos_Part_2| Rav Mordechai Willig (Asicha Shabbos 2 p. 6)]], Rav Belsky in Shulchan Halevi 9:1, [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?a=114404 Rav Shmuel Fuerst (min 23-26)]</ref>
## While there are some Poskim who give a hashgocha on certain blush powders to be used on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]], the majority of the powders on the market are oil-based, which therefore causes the blush to be absorbed by the skin which would make it Tzovaya.<ref>Igros Moshe O.C. 5:27</ref> Therefore, unless one has a hechsher on a particular product, one should assume that all cosmetic rouge powders are forbidden for use on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]].<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Nail varnish==

#It is forbidden to apply or remove nail varnish on [[shabbat]].<ref>Shmirat [[Shabbat]] Kehilchata 1.158, Yalkut Yosef 4.2.102 </ref>

==Combing hair==

#Regarding combing one's hair on [[Shabbat]], see the [[Getting Dressed on Shabbat]] page.

==Braiding hair==

#It is forbidden to braid hair on [[shabbat]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 303:26, based on gemara shabbat 94b </ref>

==Perfume==

#It is permitted to apply perfume onto the human body but it is forbidden to apply perfume onto clothing on [[shabbat]].<ref>Mishna Brurah 322:18, Shulchan Aruch 511:4. The reason for the prohibition of being molid reach (creating scent) in clothing is either because it's like creating a new entity, which is similar to an act of melacha (Mishna Brurah 511:27), or because it is like fixing the garment (tikun maneh) when one adds scent to it, which constitutes a violation of makeh b'patish (Mishna Brurah 658:7). </ref>

==Nail polish==

#It is forbidden to use nail polish on [[Shabbat]], whether it is a colored nail polish or clear polish, as the shine adds a pleasant finish to the nail, and is enhancing the natural color of the nail, thus violating [[Tzovaya]].<ref>Shmiras [[Shabbos]] K'Hilchosa 14:footnote 152</ref>
#It is for this same reason that one would be prohibited from using whitening strips for teeth.
#It is also for this reason that one is prohibited from using fade creams that are of the same color as one's natural skin, even if it is being used just to cover up blemishes.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Sun-Tanning==

#Some Poskim go as far as to prohibit intentional suntanning, as this leaves a color on the skin, and thus may violate [[tzovaya]].<ref>Minchas Yitzchok 5:32</ref>
#It should be noted that not all Poskim concur with this ruling, and everyone holds that it is permitted to merely sit outside if there is no intention of tanning, even if one will be pleased with the results.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) </ref>

==Makeup Removal==

#While putting on makeup in most cases is forbidden, removing it is permitted. However, it is preferable to be use a disposable tissue, so as to avoid questions of coloring the cloth or towel being used.<ref>Mishna Brurah 320:59</ref> One should also avoid using nail polish remover<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (vol 3, chap 14, note 79)</ref>.

==Smoothing cremes==

#As stated above there is another concern aside for coloring, when dealing with lotions and that is [[Memachek]] ([[smoothing]]). Therefore, the use of lipstick or even non colored chap stick are prohibited under this Melacha<ref>Igros Moshe O.C. 1:114</ref>. Skin blemish concealers, hand creams (Nivea, Eucerin),Vaseline, rouge creams, moisturizers, toothpaste, lotions and the like are all prohibited under [[Memachek]] as well<ref>Rashi ([[Shabbos]] 146b D"h Mishchah), Rambam ([[Shabbat]] 13:11), Shulchan Aruch 314:11, Mishna Brurah 314:45, Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>.

==Lotions==

#As long as the lotion has a thin and pourable consistency like that of oil<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) quoting R' Nosson Kupshitz Shlita</ref> it would be permitted to use (providing that it is not medicinal, as then one would have to ask a shailo regarding the [[Refuah]] aspect). Therefore, one may apply most forms of sunblock lotion on an infant (or himself for that matter) as they are of very loose consistency.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) quoting R' Nosson Kupshitz Shlita</ref>

==Credits==

#Special thanks to Rabbi Heshy Kahn for this article.

==Common questions==

#Is it permissible to use Crest whitening strips on [[Shabbos]]? See above [[#Nail polish]].

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/826618/Rabbi_Uri_Orlian/Makeup_&_Cosmetics_on_Shabbos:_An_Introduction_to_the_Melacha_of_Memachek Makeup & Cosmetics on Shabbos] by Rabbi Orlian
*Article on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735694/Rabbi_Dr_J_David_Bleich/Cosmetic_Powder_on_Shabbat Cosmetic Powder on Shabbat] by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Cosmetics

2024-08-21T10:54:41Z

Gsilver2: /* Background */

{{Good}}
==Background==

#With so many new cosmetics on the market today, the question of using these products on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]] becomes very relevant. Some background information may shed some light on what the possible problems may be in regards to Hilchot [[Shabbos|Shabbat]]. One Melacha to be aware of, is the act of [[dyeing]] ([[Tzoveya]]), which was done to color the curtains of the Mishkan<ref>Rashi Parshas Terumah 25:5 D"h Meadamim</ref>, the second is the act of [[smoothing]] ([[Memachaik]]) which was done to finish the leather of the coverings of the Mishkan.
#While the biblical prohibition of [[dyeing]] is only something that will be colored permanently, there is still a Rabbinic prohibition on creating a temporary coloring effect. Therefore, cosmetics such as: rouges, lipsticks, eye shadow, and others which add color to the skin, albeit for a short amount of time, are still forbidden to use on [[Shabbos|Shabbat]].<ref>Rambam Hilchos [[Shabbos]] 22:23, S.A. 303:25, Mishna Brurah 303:79, Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Bar, Liquid, and Foam Soap==
{{Soap on Shabbat}}

==Cutting Nails or Hair==

#It is forbidden to cut nails or hair on [[shabbat]] or sever them in any way.<ref>S''A, Orach Chaim, 340.1 ''</ref>
#On the night of her tevila in the mikveh, a woman may have her nails cut by a non-Jew.<ref>Mishna Brura 340:3 quoting the Magen Avraham </ref>

==Lipstick==

#It is forbidden for a woman to apply lipstick on [[shabbat]].<ref>Yabia Omer 6.37, Igrot Mosher Orach Chaim 1.114, Menuchat Ahava 13.6 </ref>

==Powder==
#Many Poskim permit women applying non-sticky powder to their faces on [[Shabbat]], however, other poskim forbid this act. Nevertheless, all agree that applying sticky powder is forbidden.<ref>Yechave Daat 4.28, Menichat Ahava 13.7 </ref>
#It is forbidden to use makeup on Shabbat if it is lasting.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 303:25</ref>
# Putting on nail polish even if it is clear is forbidden.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 14 fnt. 167</ref>
# Rav Moshe Feinstein permitted putting on ordinary talcum powder and theoretically extended it to all colored powdered makeups. In practice, regarding specific makeups, he warned that the powdered makeups may not be made with a water or oil base and could not last for a long time.<ref>Igrot Moshe 1:114, 5:27, 6:25:1. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 14 fnt. 173 is strict.</ref> Many of his students forbid all powdered makeups on the market today because in practice they remain on the skin for a long time.<ref>[[Asicha_Hilchos_Shabbos_Part_2| Rav Mordechai Willig (Asicha Shabbos 2 p. 6)]], Rav Belsky in Shulchan Halevi 9:1, [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?a=114404 Rav Shmuel Fuerst (min 23-26)]</ref>

==Nail varnish==

#It is forbidden to apply or remove nail varnish on [[shabbat]].<ref>Shmirat [[Shabbat]] Kehilchata 1.158, Yalkut Yosef 4.2.102 </ref>

==Combing hair==

#Regarding combing one's hair on [[Shabbat]], see the [[Getting Dressed on Shabbat]] page.

==Braiding hair==

#It is forbidden to braid hair on [[shabbat]].<ref>Mishna Brurah 303.27 </ref>

==Perfume==

#It is permitted to apply perfume onto the human body but it is forbidden to apply perfume onto clothing on [[shabbat]].<ref>Mishna Brurah 125.23 </ref>

==Nail polish==

#It is forbidden to use nail polish on [[Shabbat]] whether it is a colored nail polish or clear polish as the shine adds a pleasant finish to the nail, and is enhancing the natural color of the nail which is included in Tzovaya<ref>Shmiras [[Shabbos]] K'Hilchosa 14:footnote 152</ref>.
#It is for this same reason, that one would be prohibited from using (i.e. crest) whitening strips. Once again it is also for this same reason that one is prohibited from using fade creams that are of the same color as one's natural skin, even if it is being used just to cover up blemishes.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Blush powders==

#While there are some Poskim who give a hashgocha on certain blush powders to be used on [[Shabbos]], majority of the powders on the market are oil based which therefore causes the blush to be absorbed by the skin which would make it Tzovaya<ref>Igros Moshe O.C. 5:27</ref>. Therefore, unless one has a hechsher on a particular product, one should assume that all cosmetic rouge powders are forbidden for use on [[Shabbos]].<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>

==Sun-Tanning==

#Some Poskim go as far as to prohibit intentional suntanning as this leaves a permanent color on the skin<ref>Minchas Yitzchok 5:32</ref>. [It should be noted that not all Poskim concur with this ruling, and everyone holds that it is permitted to merely sit outside if there is no intention of tanning, even if one will be pleased with the results.]<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) </ref>

==Makeup Removal==

#While putting on makeup, is in many cases forbidden, removing it is permitted. However, it is preferable to be use a disposable tissue, so as to avoid questions of coloring the cloth or towel being used<ref>M.B. 320:59</ref>. One should also avoid using nail polish remover<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (vol 3, chap 14, note 79)</ref>.

==Smoothing cremes==

#As stated above there is another concern aside for coloring, when dealing with lotions and that is [[Memachek]] ([[smoothing]]). Therefore, the use of lipstick or even non colored chap stick are prohibited under this Melacha<ref>Igros Moshe O.C. 1:114</ref>. Skin blemish concealers, hand creams (Nivea, Eucerin),Vaseline, rouge creams, moisturizers, toothpaste, lotions and the like are all prohibited under [[Memachek]] as well<ref>Rashi ([[Shabbos]] 146b D"h Mishchah), Rambam ([[Shabbat]] 13:11), Shulchan Aruch 314:11, Mishna Brurah 314:45, Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11)</ref>.

==Lotions==

#As long as the lotion has a thin and pourable consistency like that of oil<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) quoting R' Nosson Kupshitz Shlita</ref> it would be permitted to use (providing that it is not medicinal, as then one would have to ask a shailo regarding the [[Refuah]] aspect). Therefore, one may apply most forms of sunblock lotion on an infant (or himself for that matter) as they are of very loose consistency.<ref>Rabbi Heshy Kahn (What's Doing, Greater Connecticut, 3/3/11) quoting R' Nosson Kupshitz Shlita</ref>

==Credits==

#Special thanks to Rabbi Heshy Kahn for this article.

==Common questions==

#Is it permissible to use Crest whitening strips on [[Shabbos]]? See above [[#Nail polish]].

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/826618/Rabbi_Uri_Orlian/Makeup_&_Cosmetics_on_Shabbos:_An_Introduction_to_the_Melacha_of_Memachek Makeup & Cosmetics on Shabbos] by Rabbi Orlian
*Article on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735694/Rabbi_Dr_J_David_Bleich/Cosmetic_Powder_on_Shabbat Cosmetic Powder on Shabbat] by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Template:Soap on Shabbat

2024-08-21T10:54:30Z

Gsilver2:

#Some poskim hold that it is permitted to use a bar of soap on Shabbat because one doesn't intend of smoothing out the bar of soap or creating any soap suds.<ref>According to Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:50), it is permitted to use a bar of soap or liquid soap on [[shabbat]] because one has no intention of changing anything. One only intends to clean what he is washing. </ref> On the opposite extreme, some poskim hold that it is forbidden to use either bar or liquid soap on Shabbat.<ref>According to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Sh"t Igrot Moshe OC 1:113) it is forbidden to use a bar of soap and it is forbidden to use liquid soap on [[shabbat]], due to a concern of memareach. </ref> However, according to the majority of poskim, one may not use a bar of soap but one may use liquid soap on Shabbat.<ref>According to Chacham Ben-Zion Abba-Shaul (Sh"t Or Litzion 2:35:5), one may not use a bar of soap but one may use liquid soap on [[shabbat]]. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=932 Rabbi Eli Mansour], Aruch Hashulchan 326:11, and Ketzot Hashulchan 146:32 agree. Kitzur Hilchot [[Shabbat]] pg. 74 says this is the common practice. See also Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 14:16. [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/798018/rabbi-hershel-schachter/shiur-11-shabbos-memachaik-memare-ach/ Rav Schachter (Shabbat Shiur 11)] explained that it is questionable to forbid using a liquid soap since the resultant sods created are very temporary.</ref>
#Some poskim permit the use of foam handsoap on Shabbat.<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/798018/rabbi-hershel-schachter/shiur-11-shabbos-memachaik-memare-ach/ Rav Schachter (Shabbat Shiur 11)]
holds that using foamy soap is permitted, and that there is no problem of memareach or of nolad, since the result is very temporary, as it is almost immediately washed down the drain. [[Asicha_Hilchos_Shabbos_Part_2| Rav Willig (Asicha Shabbos 2 p. 9)]] agrees.</ref>
#If one used a scented soap to clean one’s hands, it is permitted to dry one’s hands on a towel.<ref>Ginat Veradim OC 3:16 writes that it is permitted to use rose water to clean your hands and to dry them on a towel since there’s no prohibition of molid re'ach (scenting garments) when it is unintentional. Molid is only a derabbanan and if one doesn’t intend for it, it isn’t an issue of a pesik reisha. This is also the opinion of the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo Beitzah 2:34). Rav Avraham Antebi writes that the Syrian minhag was to use rose water on Shabbat for washing hands.</ref>
#Using Purell is like using liquid hand soap, and thus many poskim permit using it on Shabbat.<ref>[https://www.crcweb.org/faq/faqanswer.php?faqid=56 Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz]</ref>

Dancing, Clapping, and Making Music on Shabbat

2024-07-31T02:56:09Z

Gsilver2:

{{Okay}}[[File:ChassidimDancing.jpg|thumb]]
Chazal forbade dancing and clapping on Shabbat and Yom Tov so that a person doesn't come to fix a musical instrument on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Some authorities and minhagim are lenient to allow it nowadays, while others do not.
==Dancing or Clapping==

#It's forbidden to dance or clap on [[Shabbat]]. This is a rabbinic decree lest one fix an instrument.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 339:3, Rambam Shabbat 23:5. The Mishna in Beitzah 36b writes that it’s forbidden to clap or dance on [[Yom Tov]] or [[Shabbat]]. The Gemara (36b) explains that this is a rabbinic prohibition in order to prevent a person from coming to fix a musical instrument. The gemara (30a) notes that in the times of the amoraim, the common practice of the masses was to clap and dance on shabbat, but that the amoraim refrained from chastising them because they were afraid that the masses wouldn't listen anyway (מוטב שיהו שוגגין ואל יהו מזידין - better that they violate the prohibition due by accident, due to lack of knowledge, rather than to violate it willingly). </ref>
##However, clapping in a weird way (i.e. with a shinuy) is permitted.<ref>The Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 23:5) writes that to clap in a weird way is permitted - ולספק כלאחר יד מותר. The Maggid Mishna explains that this is based on a yerushalmi. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 339:3) paskens like the Rambam. Thus, it is permitted to clap on shabbos in an atypical fashion. </ref>
#Some have the minhag to be lenient regarding all dancing and clapping, and one shouldn't protest those who are lenient.<ref>*Tosfot (Beitzah 30a s.v. Tenan) writes that the gezerah of Chazal only applied then when they were experts in fixing musical instruments but it wouldn’t apply to us since we’re not experts in that area.
*The Bet Yosef 339:3 writes that the implication of all the poskim who simply copy the prohibition of the Mishna is that they do not hold of the logic of Tosfot. The Shulchan Aruch 339:3 rules clearly that it’s forbidden to clap or dance on [[Shabbat]].
*The Rama writes that the minhag is to be lenient based on the opinion of Tosfot that there’s no prohibition anymore of coming to fix a musical instrument. The implication of the Rama is that this minhag isn’t proper but it’s better not to inform people of the prohibition so that they only violate it unintentionally and not deliberately.
*Aruch Hashulchan 339:5-9 writes that the logic to be lenient would be that our singing and dancing nowadays is different and would never bring one to fixing an instrument and thus the gezera of Chazal not to dance and clap wouldn't apply to our dancing or clapping.
*Sh"t Minchat Elazar 1:29 justifies the practice of dancing on Yom Tov for someone who becomes very excited from dancing because it is like the leniency for the simchat mitzva of dancing with the torah on Simchat Torah</ref>
##Many authorities say that one shouldn't rely on this lenient minhag except in cases of mitzvah.<ref>The Mishna Brurah 339:10 writes that one shouldn’t rely on this minhag except in cases of mitzvah. This is also the opinion of the Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 16:43-4. Sh"t Igrot Moshe 2:100 writes that even though most rishonim don't hold of the leniency of tosfot, since the rama quotes tosfot and that is the common minhag, there is what to rely on. Nonetheless, Rav Moshe thinks that a baal nefesh should be strict. 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160) writes that based on the Rama many people permit themselves to clap and drum their fingers while singing (and quotes Igrot Moshe in the footnote). </ref>
##Sephardim should be strict in all cases.<ref>Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:58, Sh"t Yabea Omer 3:22 </ref>
#For the honor of the Torah, even the strict approach permits dancing on [[Simchat Torah]].<ref>Beit Yosef siman 339 (quoting Rav Hai Goan and Mahari Kolon), Mishna Brurah (siman 339 s.k. 8), The 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160). </ref>
##They do not permit clapping and dancing for a chattan and kallah.<ref>Mishna Brura 339:8, Shulchan Aruch Harav 339:2 </ref>

==Making (Rhythmic) Sound==

#It is forbidden to play a musical instrument even if the sound produced isn't musical or rhythmic.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 338:1 </ref>
##Examples of instruments included are whistles, rattles, bells, horns, and groggers.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1161) </ref>
#It's forbidden to make music (a rhythm) using any tool, or even one's hand (such as snapping).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 338:1. The Gemara Eiruvin 104a has a dispute between Rav Menashe who forbids any production of sound, and Rava who only forbids making music (קול של שיר). The Bet Yosef 338:1 quotes the Rif and Rambam 23:4 who hold like Rava and infers from the Rosh 10:20 that he also holds like Rava. However, the Rosh and Tur 338:1 quote the Rabbenu Chananel who holds like Rav Menashe. The reason of Rava isn’t clear from the Gemara, Rashi, or Tosfot. However, the Rambam 23:4 writes that the reason of the prohibition is the same as in the Mishna in Beitzah, so that one doesn’t come to fix an instrument. The Magen Avraham 338:1 clearly understands like the Rambam, as he even writes that really there is room for being lenient as the Rama writes in 339:3. This is also codified in Mishna Brurah 338:1. The Mishna Brurah adds that the prohibition is not limited to a musical instrument and also applies to one's hand. The Rambam (hilchot shabbat 23:4) writes that included in the gezeira against making music is that one should not snap their fingers together in the manner of the singers - אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד אַחַת כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמְשׁוֹרְרִים. The Shulchan Aruch (339:3) paskens like this. See also Mishna Brurah 339:9. </ref>
##Therefore, one may not knock on a door with one’s fist in a rhythm.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160) based on Mishna Brurah 338:1 (see previous footnote for background). See Orchot [[Shabbat]] 2:21(21) who agrees with this. </ref>
#According to Ashkenazim, one may not use a door knocker to knock on the door, even without a rhythm, as it is considered an instrument designated for making sound.<ref>Beit Yosef 338 cites from the Agur that one may not use a kli designated for making noise on shabbat, even if one does so in a non-rhythmic way. The Beit Yosef is perplexed by this position, because it doesn't seem to fit with either position in the gemara. It seems like he's holding that really only making rhythmic noise (קול של שיר) is prohibited (like the Rif against the Rabbenu Chananel), but that nonetheless there is an additional decree not to use a special kli in any manner. Rama 338:1 paskens like this Agur. This is based on the Maharil 38:4. 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1161), Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 23:55, The [[Shabbos]] Home (Rabbi Simcha Cohen, vol 2, pg 535) quote this as halacha. </ref>
##If there is no other entrance available and one needs to enter, it is permitted to open a door on [[Shabbat]] which has bells attached to it. It is preferable to remove the bells before [[Shabbat]].<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1161), Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 23:54. See also biur halacha 338:1 s.v. ho'il (elaborated on in the next footnote). </ref>
##In cases of great need it is permitted to use the door knocker.<ref>Biur Halacha (338:1 s.v. Ho'il) has a few reasons to be lenient in cases of need.

*(1) The Rambam in peirush hamishnayos doesn't hold of this chumra of the Agur cited by the Rama not to use a kli ham'yuchad. As long as one isn't making rhythmic noise, it is permitted.

*(2) Perhaps this chumra of the Agur is based on the idea that a kli ham'yuchad is considered uvdin d'chol, in which case this is a lower-level isur drabanan and so one can permit it for the sake of a mitzvah, as seen in the Rama 333:1. Being able to enter one's house in order to go to sleep is certainly considered a mitzvah of kavod shabbat.

*(3) If one can use the door knocker (or ring the bell) by using a shinuy then this is another reason to be lenient, as we see in Shulchan Aruch 339:3 that clapping with a shinuy is permitted. </ref>
#It is permissible to use an object not designed for producing sound, in order to produce sound, provided that the sound is not rhythmic.
##For example, it's permissible to tap on a glass (cup) to get the audience's attention, or to knock on a door with a key.<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160) </ref>
#One may set an alarm clock before [[Shabbat]] even though it will make noise on [[Shabbat]].<ref>The [[Shabbos]] Home (Rabbi Simcha Cohen, vol 2, pg 537) and Sh"t Maharshag YD 1:7(2) permit. Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 338 footnote 15) also cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen to permit. However, Sh"t Igrot Moshe 4:70(4) only permits if it is not heard outside his personal room. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 28:29 (and 28:30 in new edition) permits setting a mechanical alarm clock before [[Shabbat]] that involves removing a pin on shabbat to get it to stop. </ref>
#After fulfilling the mitzvah of blowing (or listening) to the [[Shofar]], one may not blow the [[Shofar]] on [[Rosh Hashana]] for practice or amusement. The same restriction applies to [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]].<ref>39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1162) </ref>

==Children==

#Regarding children and noisemakers, see [[Games_on_Shabbat#Noisemakers|Games on Shabbat]].

==Singing==

#It is permitted to sing or whistle (with one's mouth) on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Rama 338:1 permits whistling. The Magen Avraham 338:2 explains that this is only referring to whistling which is not musical. However, Mishna Brurah 338:3 disagrees and says even if you whistle a song it is permissible because it is with the mouth. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 16:2, Rav Aviner (Sh"t She'eilat Shlomo 1:182), Rav Y.D. Soloveitchik (Divrei Harav, pg. 197-198) and 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160) rule in accordance with the Mishna Brurah. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=756 Rabbi Mansour] concludes that whistling on Shabbat is permitted but adds that whistling in public isn't becoming of a Ben Torah.</ref>

==Links==

*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/762873/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Clapping_and_Dancing_on_Shabbos Ten Minute Halacha - Clapping and Dancing on Shabbos] by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/801580/Rabbi_Michael_Siev/Five_Minute_Halacha_-_Clapping,_Dancing_and_Tapping_the_Table_on_Shabbat Five Minute Halacha - Clapping, Dancing and Tapping the Table on Shabbat] by Rabbi Michael Siev
*Article by Rabbi Ari Enkin on [http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/11/clapping-dancing-and-musical.html Clapping, Dancing, and Musical Instruments on Shabbat]

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-31T02:23:18Z

Gsilver2: /* Utensils Designed for Grinding */

{{Template:Good}}
[[File:Grinding.jpg|thumb]]
Tochen (lit: grinding) is one of the 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. Below are its relevant details and practical applications.

==Definition==

#The melacha is defined as the constructive reduction of a large singular entity into small parts whereby it serves a new purpose.<ref>Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot 7:2 </ref>
##Examples include chopping wood into small chips for a fire, shaving down a metal rod to form small strips, and dicing vegetables to cook them.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 8:15 </ref>
##The prohibition of Tochen ([[grinding]]) includes chopping, grating, crushing, mashing, shredding, or breaking something into small pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 </ref>
#Tochen also applies to non-foods. For example it's forbidden to crush a clod of dirt, shave splinters off a piece of wood, sawing wood with intent for the dust.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 in the note, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>

=== In the Mishkan ===

# Tochen (grinding) was performed in the mishkan in the process of crushing herbs to make dyes.<ref>Rashi Shabbos 73a s.v. HaOfeh. See 39 Melochos (Rabbi Ribiat vol. 2, Zoreiah footnote 7) </ref>

=== Toldot ===
#Cutting up vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them and shaving down a metal rod are examples of toldot of Tochen.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:5, 8:15, 21:18 </ref>

== How Small is Small? ==

=== Making a Salad ===
# It is forbidden to cut vegetables into very small pieces.<ref>The gemara shabbat 74b cites Rav Papa as stating that one who is פרים סילקא (lit: chops up beets) into small pieces has violated the melacha of tochen. This is Rashi's girsa in the gemara there. However, according to many rishonim, it is actually not so simple that merely chopping vegetables would be a problem of tochen.

*(1) The Rosh 7:5 cites from Rabbenu Chananel that the correct pshat in the gemara is one who grinds up twigs into sawdust. The Rosh asks how Rashi could think that merely chopping up vegetables would be a violation of tochen. The Korban Netanel 10 explains that the Torah wouldn't have prohibited chopping up vegetables because it's impossible to give a clear guideline as to how small is small, and because this type of chopping doesn't really have a significant effect on the vegetable (in contrast to grinding wheat into flour, which completely changes the character of the wheat into a new entity). Thus, according to the Rosh / R"C, there is never an issue of tochen with chopping vegetables.

*(2) Tosfot (shabbat 74b s.v. high) is seemingly bothered by the Rosh's question on Rashi, and so even though he learns the gemara like Rashi (that the gemara is discussing chopping up beets), he limits it by stating that only beets are included in this prohibition, but not other vegetables. He doesn't explain what makes beets unique that only they would be subject to tochen if chopped up into small pieces. Minchat Chinuch (tochen 2) explains that tosfot means to distinguish between vegetables that can be eaten raw and those that need to be cooked. Beets must be cooked, and so chopping is viewed as the preparatory step towards cooking, and thus a more significant act. In contrast, when one chops up a vegetable that doesn't need to be cooked, this is viewed as just part of the eating process.

*(3) This idea is explicitly stated by the Ritva 74b, that only beets and other vegetables which are not eaten raw would be subject to this prohibition of tochen.

*(4) There are some who suggest that the Rambam agrees to a variation of this idea as well. He writes in a few places that one has violated tochen when they chop up vegetables into small pieces "כדי לבשלו" (lit: in order to cook them). It sounds like he thinks that only if the chopping is a preparatory step in the cooking process is it viewed as a significant act that would be defined as melacha [this is still slightly different than the Ritva; if there is a vegetable that can be eaten raw, but one chops it up in order to cook it, they would still be obligated according to this understanding of the Rambam, even though they would be patur according to the Ritva]. The Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 21:18) understands the Rambam this way. However, many achronim disagree (Aruch Hashulchan 321:4; Minchat Chinuch tochen 2; Biur Hagra 321:15), and think that the Rambam merely mentioned "in order to cook them" just to describe a situation in which one would chop up vegetables into small pieces, but it is not actually a requirement that the chopping be done to prepare for cooking.

*However, other rishonim agree to Rashi that there would be an issue to chop up vegetables, even if one does not intend to cook them, and even if they are edible raw. For example, Tosfot (shabbat 114b s.v. ela) states that chopping up vegetables into pieces that are "דקות מאוד" (lit: very small) violates tochen, but chopping them into big pieces is completely permitted (since this isn't considered similar at all to "grinding"). Similarly, Haga'ot Maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 21 ot 70) cites from the Rashbam that crumbling up bread is not a problem of tochen because the bread has already been ground up once (when first made, the wheat was ground into flour), and so tochen can't be violated a second time. The implication here is that without this argument to be lenient, tochen would have been applicable on bread, even though it is food, edible as it is, and one doesn't intend to cook it further.

*L'halacha, the Shulchan Aruch 321:12 paskens stringently that one who chops up vegetables into pieces that are "דק דק" (lit: very small) has violated the biblical melacha of tochen. As we have seen, many rishonim would disagree with this statement, but of course many would agree, and so the Shulchan Aruch follows the strict approach. However, there is a discussion whether the Rama agrees to this or not. The Rama writes that it is similarly prohibited to chop up figs or carrobs for old people. Why does he specify old people? The Magen Avraham 321:14 suggests that perhaps the Rama understands that it is only prohibited to chop it for old people since they are unable to eat the vegetables otherwise. This type of chopping is significant and thus deemed melacha. However, if someone is able to eat the vegetables even before the chopping, then chopping would be permitted. This is a major leniency. However, it is rejected by the Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 321:12 s.v. lifnei), who suggests that really the Rama just mentioned old people because that was the common case, but it was not meant to exclude other people. Practically then, the halacha is that one may not chop vegetables into very small pieces even for one who is able to eat them otherwise.</ref>
## Some say it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to cut up vegetables into very small pieces even though it is not for immediate consumption (e.g. Friday night after the meal for the purpose of lunch the next day).<ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=128698 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Lech Lecha 5781, min 41-52)] explains that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to chop up vegetables for a salad for lunch far in advance since there are some opinions in the rishonim who would permit it since the vegetables were edible raw. </ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into pieces that are somewhat large, immediately before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:6. This is based on the leniency of the Rashbah (discussed below) that one may perform tochen right before consumption. The Beit Yosef isn't willing to rely upon the Rashbah fully, but he suggests that if one chops up the vegetables a little bit bigger than normal (such that it might not be "דק דק"), then one can rely upon the Rashbah to do so right before the meal. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 paskens this way as well.</ref>
## What is considered somewhat large?
### This is a debate amongst the poskim.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913-5 cites 3 main approaches:
*Rav Belsky (OU Documents S-34) holds that the size for tochen is cutting it smaller than one usually cuts. Rav Elyashiv (Am Mekadshei Sheviyi 1:6:4) and Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 39) concur.
*Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130) write that it is a problem of tochen if one cuts it to a size that people consider very small.
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2) seems to hold that as long as one still needs to chew on it to eat it (and can't just swallow it), it is big enough to not violate tochen. 39 Melachos v. 2 p. 458 seems to apply Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's opinion to permit cutting any salad, since it will still need to be chewed. However, he concludes that we do not follow that opinion. Minchat Ish 3:4:4 s.v. vheneh has a different interpretation of Rav Shlomo Zalmen which is more strict. RSZ didn't mean that if it's big enough that it can't be swallowed then it is permitted to cut it to that size; rather, RSZ is just saying that if it is a little small then it has made the chewing process easier and is considered tochen.
*Lastly, they cite Zachor Vshamor (Tochen 2) who says that if the pieces are larger than 1/2 cm cubed, then it is certainly not considered very small.</ref>
#### Some define it as pieces which are unable to be swallowed whole and must be chewed.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that are cut larger than typically cut during the week.<ref>39 Melachos v. 2 p. 460, Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2914 citing Chazon Ish 57 s.v. vheneh, Brit Olam (Tochen 20), Az Nidbaru 11:8, 12:22, Shabbos Kitchen ch. 9 fnt. 19, Rivevot Efraim 5:260:3, Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 91)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that most people would consider small.<ref>Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130)</ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into large pieces, even far in advance of a meal.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913</ref>

=== Slicing Along a Single Axis ===
#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of tochen applies only if the food is being cut very small in all dimensions or if it even applies if one is slicing in one direction, such as when slicing an egg or tomato.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 3) writes that slicing foods in one direction isn’t considered tochen because otherwise there would be no limit. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sh”t Minchat Shlomo 91:13) also rules this way. On the other hand, Ketzot HaShulchan Siman 129 Badei HaShulchan 2 quotes that the Tzemach Tzedek was stringent. Additionally, Orchot Shabbos page 217 chapter 5:footnote 12 writes that Rav Elyashiv was stringent as well. </ref>

=== Mashing ===

#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of Tochen applies to fruit or vegetables (such as bananas and avocados) that do not separate into individual pieces when mashed, but rather just change shape and remain one large mass.<ref>The Tosefta (Beitza 1:19) says that "Pressed or dried figs cannot be crushed before the elderly." The Chazon Ish (57, “nimtzeinu”) writes that when pressed or dried figs are crushed, they remain one mass, and therefore even in such a case tochen is applicable. In light of this, the Chazon Ish writes that it is forbidden to mash a banana even though it remains one mass after being mashed. He thinks that this is forbidden even for immediate eating (since he rejects the leniency of the Rashba, and thinks that even the Rashba was only lenient by chopping vegetables, but wouldn't be lenient here). Therefore, he says one must mash the banana with a shinui. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 2) rules that mashing is not subject to the prohibition of Tochen (since you aren't actually separating it into different parts), and thus the banana may be mashed in the regular manner. He also thinks that if there would be an isur of tochen here, then it shouldn't be mutar just because you do it with a shinuy. He nevertheless concludes that if possible, one should mash the banana with a shinui in order to be machmir for the position of the Chazon Ish. </ref>
##Therefore, it is better to do so with a shinui.<ref>Rabbi Ribiat (“The 39 Melochos” pg. 461) sides with Rav Moshe that really me'ikar hadin one may mash the banana without a shinuy because mashing is not considered tochen. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:27) agrees to the Chazon Ish that mashing is considered tochen, but permits one to mash a banana with a fork to feed immediately to a child. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Menuchat Ahava 2: pg. 278), writes that he should preferably do so in an unusual manner, such as by using the handle of the fork. Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchita 6:7-8 forbids mashing a banana or avocado unless one uses a shinui. </ref>
##If it's already so soft that when one simply pulls a piece of the fruit, that piece separates from the rest of the fruit, then it is permitted to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:7 </ref>

==Various Leniencies==

=== For Immediate Consumption (לאלתר) ===
#Since there are some who hold that it is permitted to cut up raw vegetables or fruit for "immediate" consumption, and there are others who forbid, many poskim write that one should only cut up the vegetables or fruit with a knife into somewhat large pieces for "immediate" consumption.<ref>*The Rashba (Responsa 4:75) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen immediately before consumption just like it is permitted to do [[Borer]] immediately before consumption. The opinion of the Rashba is codified as halacha in the Rama 321:12. The Magen Avraham 321:15, however, quotes the Shiltei Giborim who questions this leniency. Similarly, the Chazon Ish OC 57 seems to prohibit chopping into small pieces even for immediate use in opposition to the Rashba.
*In discussing the Rashba, the Beit Yosef 321 writes that in order to satisfy all opinions one should cut the item into somewhat big pieces and then eat it immediately. The Chaye Adam (Klal 17:2) rules that for immediate consumption one may cut vegetables into somewhat large pieces in accordance with the Beit Yosef. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2) writes that the view of the Chazon Ish 57 that prohibits chopping into small pieces even for immediate use is a lone view and against the common practice. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Ohr Litzion 1:28) is also lenient. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 first writes that since some Rishonim disagree with the Rashba one should follow the compromise of the Beit Yosef to cut it up into somewhat large pieces. Nonetheless, he concludes, that one who cuts it up into very small pieces for immediate consumption has what to rely on. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 agrees.</ref>
##Sephardim hold that for immediate consumption it is permitted to cut up a vegetable even into small pieces. However, it is praiseworthy to be strict to only cut it into big pieces.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
##For a child or someone who can't eat large pieces, there is what to rely upon to cut it up into small pieces, as long as one does so right before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
##The above leniency is only if one uses a regular knife, but not a special dicing utensil.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#How do we define "immediate consumption"?
##It is considered "immediate" as long as one makes the salad right before beginning the meal in which it will be eaten.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
###If one plans on going to shul, then one should make the salad after coming back from shul, not before.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45</ref>
##The above leniency applies whether one is preparing for one's own immediate consumption or another person's.<ref>Bet Yosef 321 based on the Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 74a s.v. [[Borer]] UMayni'ach) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen for another person's immediate consumption just like it is permitted to do Tochen for one's own immediate consumption. Mishna Brurah 321:43 agrees.</ref>
##If one made a salad for one meal and there was leftovers, one is allowed to eat it at another meal.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>

=== Pre-crushed Food (אין טוחן אחר טוחן) ===
#Food that was made from crushed particles may be crushed on [[Shabbat]] if one will eat it on shabbat. This is based on the principle of "ein tochen achar tochen" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen)<ref>This is based on the principle of "אין טוחן אחר טוחן" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen). There are different explanations given in the achronim to explain why one can't violate tochen a second time.

*(1) The Chazon Ish (OC:57 s.v. inyan), cited by Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 321 footnote 55), explains that really the point here is that a substance which was joined together by a human being (as opposed to naturally forming) isn't really considered to be unified in a real way. Hence, the bread, which is made up of flour particles that were joined together via kneading it with water, isn't considered a unit and thus not subject to tochen. This is different than wheat, which formed naturally and so is considered a unit, and therefore would be subject to tochen.

*(2) The Gra (biur hagra 321:16) comments on the Rama that the same is true for every melacha. Clearly then, he understands that the principle of "no tochen after tochen" is not saying anything particular about tochen (i.e. not like the chazon ish). Rather, it is a general point about melacha. One cannot violate the melacha a second time, presumably because it is no longer really accomplishing something significant. This is thus similar to the principle of "no bishul after bishul", that once something is cooked, it cannot be cooked again (unless perhaps if it is liquid and it cools down).

*(3) Rebbe Akiva Eiger seems to have a different understanding. The Shulchan Aruch 302:7 says that one may not use their fingernail to scratch off dry dirt from their clothing, because this would inevitably grind up the dirt and thereby violate tochen. Rebbe Akiva Eiger there asks why this should be a problem of tochen given that in general we hold "no tochen after tochen", and certainly this dirt was initially disparate and only became a unit after drying up. He is clearly arguing on the chazon ish, as he's applying ein tochen achar tochen even to a case when it naturally formed. He is also seemingly against the Gra, because he's applying ein tochen achar tochen to a case when it was never actually ground up by before, but merely started off disparate and then joined together on its own. He seems to understand that as long as a unit began as disparate pieces, then there will be no problem of tochen to grind it up. Tochen is only relevant on something which was always a unit, such as wheat and the like.</ref>
##For example, one may crush [[matza]], bread, crackers, chocolate, and sugar.<ref>The Rama 321:12 rules that it is permitted to crush up bread because the flour was already ground up when it was made. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 extends this to breaking up [[matza]], crackers, chocolate, and sugar.</ref>
#Food which was crushed very well before [[Shabbat]], or on [[Shabbat]] in a permissible way, may be further cut on [[Shabbat]] even in the normal fashion.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:12 </ref>
#If someone made farina or rice porridge before Shabbat and now on Shabbat it is dry, one may pour hot water even from a ''Kli Rishon'' onto the farina or rice porridge to dilute it and mix it up. One may even crush the clumps with a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:13 </ref>

=== Foods not From the Ground (אינו גידולי קרקע) ===
#Even though there is an issue of tochen on non-food items as well as food items, foods that do not grow from the ground such as meat, eggs, and cheese are not subject to the prohibition of tochen.<ref>Gemara Shabbos 74b writes that one who grinds firewood into small pieces is chayav for tochen. Rambam Shabbos 7:5 includes grinding metal as a tolda of tochen. The Minchat Chinuch (Musach Hashabbos Tochen 4) concludes based on the Rambam’s example that tochen applies to items which are not gidulei karka, and he adds that this is also the view of Rashi (gemara 74b s.v. “Sheva”), who writes that there is a prohibition of tochen for clods of Earth. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 321:10) writes that both dirt and metal may be considered gidulei karka. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 321:9, based on Terumat Hadeshen 56, writes that one may cut cooked meat into very small pieces. Mishna Brurah 321:31 explains that this is because it isn’t gidulei karka and therefore the prohibition doesn’t apply. Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:14 and Yalkut Yosef (Shabbos, vol 3, pg 391) extend this to eggs and cheese. Shoneh Halachot 321:24 quotes the Chazon Ish that one may not be lenient with things that do not grow in the ground unless the intention is to eat them immediately.</ref>
#One may not grind up raw meat on Shabbat, since otherwise it isn't edible.<ref>Rama 321:9, Kaf Hachaim 324:29</ref> If it is for immediate consumption it is permitted.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:33, Tiferet 321:47 citing Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 4 p. 270</ref>

=== Cooked Fruits and Vegetables ===
#Fruits or vegetables which were cooked to the point that it is very easy to mash may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. It can be mashed on Shabbat even with the prongs of a fork, but not a strainer.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:9</ref> Some say that it isn't permitted to mash unless its shape partially was crushed or fell apart because of the cooking.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (English Version p. 73) clearly translates that vegetables cooked before Shabbat need to be already crushed in that they have changed their shape or fallen apart. This is certainly the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (ch. 6 fnt. 22). However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:9 implies that essentially if it is very soft then it is permissible to mash on Shabbat even if it didn't lose its shape. See also 6:10. Orchot Shabbat 5:9 similarly sounds like it is permitted with the same conditions and doesn't require that the shape change or fall apart. The Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2923 cites the Nishmat Shabbat 321:317:4 who is lenient and the Hilchot Shabbat BShabbat (ch. 11 fnt. 41) who is strict.</ref>

=== Changing the Utensil (שינוי גמור) ===

# If one completely changes the utensil to perform tochen (instead of using the typical utensil), then it is permitted.<ref>The gemara shabbat 141a cites Rava as holding that if one uses the back of a knife to crush pepper, it is permitted because one is using a shinuy. This is quite surprising, since if crushing it up normally would constitute an isur deorayta, why should it be permitted just because one does it with a shinuy? Typically speaking, doing melacha k'la'achar yad (i.e. in the abnormal way) is still rabbinically prohibited, so why should this be different? The Beit Yosef siman 321 cites from the Shibolei Haleket siman 92 as explaining that here it is a shinuy gamur (lit: complete change), and therefore it has the ability to permit even a biblical prohibition. Changing from a stone mortar and pestle to a wooden one is the first shinuy, and changing to the back of a knife is a second shinuy. The idea is presumably that since this is so different from the typical way the melacha is done, chazal weren't concerned that if someone did it this way they would come to violate the biblical prohibition, and so chazal weren't gozer. </ref>
## For example, pepper is usually ground in a mortar and pestle, so it is permitted to grind it using the back of a knife (instead of a pestle) on a plate or on the table (instead of a mortar).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 321:7 and Mishna Brurah 321:25.</ref>
## Similarly, salt may be crushed up with the back of a knife, on a plate or the table.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 321:8</ref>
# Salt granules which solidified because of a moisture may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. However, one may not crush salt crystals (looking like blocks) or any other spice which has never yet been crushed, unless one does two Shinui's (changes) by using the handle of the knife or fork on a plate or the table.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 </ref>

==Grinding for a Small Child==

#One can be lenient to cut a food very small for a small child to eat, so long as it is done immediately prior to the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Iggeros Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2. </ref>
#If one wants to mash a banana or avocado for a small child (see above section on whether "mashing" is included in tochen), one should do it with a shinuy (lit: variation), such as using the handle of a fork or a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:8 </ref>

==Utensils Designed for Grinding==

#Any tool which is designated for crushing or the like, such as a mortar and pestle, or a knife used only for dicing, may not be used in any manner on shabbat, even for immediate use.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:2, Sh”t Rivash 184</ref>
##There is a debate whether this is merely a rabbinic prohibition of uvdin d'chol, or a biblical one of tochen.<ref>See Teshuvat Harivash siman 184, who presents both of these options. Shulchan Aruch 321:10 states that one may not grind up cheese with a special cheese grinder, even though cheese doesn't grow in the ground and thus isn't subject to tochen. Clearly, then, this is prohibited rabbinically because of uvdin d'chol, as Mishna Brurah 321:36 explains. However, the Mishna Brurah 321:45 is concerned that when tochen would be relevant (like on vegetables), then cutting them with a designated utensil might constitute an isur deorayta. This is analogous to the melacha of borer (lit: sorting), in which it is permitted to do borer by hand, but prohibited biblically if the kli is designated for borer. The Biur Halacha (321:12 s.v. midi) elaborates on this idea as well.</ref>
#List of Forbidden utensils:
##One should not use an onion slicer (a machine which is made of a set of knifes that surrounds the onion and dices it).<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 [I'm not entirely clear about what an onion slicer is.] </ref>
##A vegetable chopper (with blades fitted with springs on an axis) is forbidden since it chops vegetables thinly.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
##It’s forbidden to grind coffee beans it a grinder meant for it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>
##A cucumber or tomato slicer may not be used on Shabbat.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2891 quotes Rav Elyashiv (Zachor Vshamor ch. 1 fnt. 30) that a tomato slicer is a problem of tochen and Dor Hamelaktim compares it to a cucumber slicer.</ref>
##Potatoes or vegetables which were cooked may not be put through a strainer in order to puree it (as the strainer is designated for that purpose). However, one is permitted to crush it with a fork (even the prongs), as long as it was cooked to the point that it's easy to crush.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
##One shouldn’t use a strainer to puree or cream a cooked fruit or vegetable, since the strainer has a designated purpose of being used to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#List of Permitted utensils:
##An egg slicer (with equally spaced wires that slice the egg when pressed) is permitted.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
##A special cheese knife isn’t a utensil designated to be used for chopping finely.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11. See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (6 no. 9) citing R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where he discusses that with a cheese grater there is an issur of uvdin d’chol even if one will eat the grated cheese immediately based on the Rivash 184. However, one can use a knife and even perhaps a special chopping knife if one will eat the food subsequently in the meal since cutting is not exactly like regular tochein, which is closer to grating or mashing. </ref>
##One may cut bread in a machine (manual, non-electric) which cuts slices of bread.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 (note) </ref>
##It’s permissible to cut vegetables on a cutting board, even if it makes lines in the board.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
##It’s permissible to use a peeler to peel vegetables on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 391) </ref>

==Related Pages==

#[[Medicine on Shabbat|Taking Medicine on Shabbat]] (which is a rabbinic decree because of [[grinding]]) <ref>Gemara 53b and Rashi s.v. Gezeira </ref>

==Links==
# [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718686/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/The_Shabbos_Kitchen:_Slicing_and_Dicing_(tochen) The Shabbos Kitchen: Slicing and Dicing (Tochen)] by Rabbi Shalom Rosner# [http://www.tlc.jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_1_Back_to_the_Grind.pdf Back to the Grind] on Jewish Pathways

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-31T02:12:39Z

Gsilver2: /* Utensils Designed for Grinding */

{{Template:Good}}
[[File:Grinding.jpg|thumb]]
Tochen (lit: grinding) is one of the 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. Below are its relevant details and practical applications.

==Definition==

#The melacha is defined as the constructive reduction of a large singular entity into small parts whereby it serves a new purpose.<ref>Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot 7:2 </ref>
##Examples include chopping wood into small chips for a fire, shaving down a metal rod to form small strips, and dicing vegetables to cook them.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 8:15 </ref>
##The prohibition of Tochen ([[grinding]]) includes chopping, grating, crushing, mashing, shredding, or breaking something into small pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 </ref>
#Tochen also applies to non-foods. For example it's forbidden to crush a clod of dirt, shave splinters off a piece of wood, sawing wood with intent for the dust.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 in the note, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>

=== In the Mishkan ===

# Tochen (grinding) was performed in the mishkan in the process of crushing herbs to make dyes.<ref>Rashi Shabbos 73a s.v. HaOfeh. See 39 Melochos (Rabbi Ribiat vol. 2, Zoreiah footnote 7) </ref>

=== Toldot ===
#Cutting up vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them and shaving down a metal rod are examples of toldot of Tochen.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:5, 8:15, 21:18 </ref>

== How Small is Small? ==

=== Making a Salad ===
# It is forbidden to cut vegetables into very small pieces.<ref>The gemara shabbat 74b cites Rav Papa as stating that one who is פרים סילקא (lit: chops up beets) into small pieces has violated the melacha of tochen. This is Rashi's girsa in the gemara there. However, according to many rishonim, it is actually not so simple that merely chopping vegetables would be a problem of tochen.

*(1) The Rosh 7:5 cites from Rabbenu Chananel that the correct pshat in the gemara is one who grinds up twigs into sawdust. The Rosh asks how Rashi could think that merely chopping up vegetables would be a violation of tochen. The Korban Netanel 10 explains that the Torah wouldn't have prohibited chopping up vegetables because it's impossible to give a clear guideline as to how small is small, and because this type of chopping doesn't really have a significant effect on the vegetable (in contrast to grinding wheat into flour, which completely changes the character of the wheat into a new entity). Thus, according to the Rosh / R"C, there is never an issue of tochen with chopping vegetables.

*(2) Tosfot (shabbat 74b s.v. high) is seemingly bothered by the Rosh's question on Rashi, and so even though he learns the gemara like Rashi (that the gemara is discussing chopping up beets), he limits it by stating that only beets are included in this prohibition, but not other vegetables. He doesn't explain what makes beets unique that only they would be subject to tochen if chopped up into small pieces. Minchat Chinuch (tochen 2) explains that tosfot means to distinguish between vegetables that can be eaten raw and those that need to be cooked. Beets must be cooked, and so chopping is viewed as the preparatory step towards cooking, and thus a more significant act. In contrast, when one chops up a vegetable that doesn't need to be cooked, this is viewed as just part of the eating process.

*(3) This idea is explicitly stated by the Ritva 74b, that only beets and other vegetables which are not eaten raw would be subject to this prohibition of tochen.

*(4) There are some who suggest that the Rambam agrees to a variation of this idea as well. He writes in a few places that one has violated tochen when they chop up vegetables into small pieces "כדי לבשלו" (lit: in order to cook them). It sounds like he thinks that only if the chopping is a preparatory step in the cooking process is it viewed as a significant act that would be defined as melacha [this is still slightly different than the Ritva; if there is a vegetable that can be eaten raw, but one chops it up in order to cook it, they would still be obligated according to this understanding of the Rambam, even though they would be patur according to the Ritva]. The Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 21:18) understands the Rambam this way. However, many achronim disagree (Aruch Hashulchan 321:4; Minchat Chinuch tochen 2; Biur Hagra 321:15), and think that the Rambam merely mentioned "in order to cook them" just to describe a situation in which one would chop up vegetables into small pieces, but it is not actually a requirement that the chopping be done to prepare for cooking.

*However, other rishonim agree to Rashi that there would be an issue to chop up vegetables, even if one does not intend to cook them, and even if they are edible raw. For example, Tosfot (shabbat 114b s.v. ela) states that chopping up vegetables into pieces that are "דקות מאוד" (lit: very small) violates tochen, but chopping them into big pieces is completely permitted (since this isn't considered similar at all to "grinding"). Similarly, Haga'ot Maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 21 ot 70) cites from the Rashbam that crumbling up bread is not a problem of tochen because the bread has already been ground up once (when first made, the wheat was ground into flour), and so tochen can't be violated a second time. The implication here is that without this argument to be lenient, tochen would have been applicable on bread, even though it is food, edible as it is, and one doesn't intend to cook it further.

*L'halacha, the Shulchan Aruch 321:12 paskens stringently that one who chops up vegetables into pieces that are "דק דק" (lit: very small) has violated the biblical melacha of tochen. As we have seen, many rishonim would disagree with this statement, but of course many would agree, and so the Shulchan Aruch follows the strict approach. However, there is a discussion whether the Rama agrees to this or not. The Rama writes that it is similarly prohibited to chop up figs or carrobs for old people. Why does he specify old people? The Magen Avraham 321:14 suggests that perhaps the Rama understands that it is only prohibited to chop it for old people since they are unable to eat the vegetables otherwise. This type of chopping is significant and thus deemed melacha. However, if someone is able to eat the vegetables even before the chopping, then chopping would be permitted. This is a major leniency. However, it is rejected by the Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 321:12 s.v. lifnei), who suggests that really the Rama just mentioned old people because that was the common case, but it was not meant to exclude other people. Practically then, the halacha is that one may not chop vegetables into very small pieces even for one who is able to eat them otherwise.</ref>
## Some say it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to cut up vegetables into very small pieces even though it is not for immediate consumption (e.g. Friday night after the meal for the purpose of lunch the next day).<ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=128698 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Lech Lecha 5781, min 41-52)] explains that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to chop up vegetables for a salad for lunch far in advance since there are some opinions in the rishonim who would permit it since the vegetables were edible raw. </ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into pieces that are somewhat large, immediately before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:6. This is based on the leniency of the Rashbah (discussed below) that one may perform tochen right before consumption. The Beit Yosef isn't willing to rely upon the Rashbah fully, but he suggests that if one chops up the vegetables a little bit bigger than normal (such that it might not be "דק דק"), then one can rely upon the Rashbah to do so right before the meal. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 paskens this way as well.</ref>
## What is considered somewhat large?
### This is a debate amongst the poskim.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913-5 cites 3 main approaches:
*Rav Belsky (OU Documents S-34) holds that the size for tochen is cutting it smaller than one usually cuts. Rav Elyashiv (Am Mekadshei Sheviyi 1:6:4) and Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 39) concur.
*Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130) write that it is a problem of tochen if one cuts it to a size that people consider very small.
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2) seems to hold that as long as one still needs to chew on it to eat it (and can't just swallow it), it is big enough to not violate tochen. 39 Melachos v. 2 p. 458 seems to apply Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's opinion to permit cutting any salad, since it will still need to be chewed. However, he concludes that we do not follow that opinion. Minchat Ish 3:4:4 s.v. vheneh has a different interpretation of Rav Shlomo Zalmen which is more strict. RSZ didn't mean that if it's big enough that it can't be swallowed then it is permitted to cut it to that size; rather, RSZ is just saying that if it is a little small then it has made the chewing process easier and is considered tochen.
*Lastly, they cite Zachor Vshamor (Tochen 2) who says that if the pieces are larger than 1/2 cm cubed, then it is certainly not considered very small.</ref>
#### Some define it as pieces which are unable to be swallowed whole and must be chewed.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that are cut larger than typically cut during the week.<ref>39 Melachos v. 2 p. 460, Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2914 citing Chazon Ish 57 s.v. vheneh, Brit Olam (Tochen 20), Az Nidbaru 11:8, 12:22, Shabbos Kitchen ch. 9 fnt. 19, Rivevot Efraim 5:260:3, Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 91)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that most people would consider small.<ref>Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130)</ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into large pieces, even far in advance of a meal.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913</ref>

=== Slicing Along a Single Axis ===
#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of tochen applies only if the food is being cut very small in all dimensions or if it even applies if one is slicing in one direction, such as when slicing an egg or tomato.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 3) writes that slicing foods in one direction isn’t considered tochen because otherwise there would be no limit. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sh”t Minchat Shlomo 91:13) also rules this way. On the other hand, Ketzot HaShulchan Siman 129 Badei HaShulchan 2 quotes that the Tzemach Tzedek was stringent. Additionally, Orchot Shabbos page 217 chapter 5:footnote 12 writes that Rav Elyashiv was stringent as well. </ref>

=== Mashing ===

#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of Tochen applies to fruit or vegetables (such as bananas and avocados) that do not separate into individual pieces when mashed, but rather just change shape and remain one large mass.<ref>The Tosefta (Beitza 1:19) says that "Pressed or dried figs cannot be crushed before the elderly." The Chazon Ish (57, “nimtzeinu”) writes that when pressed or dried figs are crushed, they remain one mass, and therefore even in such a case tochen is applicable. In light of this, the Chazon Ish writes that it is forbidden to mash a banana even though it remains one mass after being mashed. He thinks that this is forbidden even for immediate eating (since he rejects the leniency of the Rashba, and thinks that even the Rashba was only lenient by chopping vegetables, but wouldn't be lenient here). Therefore, he says one must mash the banana with a shinui. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 2) rules that mashing is not subject to the prohibition of Tochen (since you aren't actually separating it into different parts), and thus the banana may be mashed in the regular manner. He also thinks that if there would be an isur of tochen here, then it shouldn't be mutar just because you do it with a shinuy. He nevertheless concludes that if possible, one should mash the banana with a shinui in order to be machmir for the position of the Chazon Ish. </ref>
##Therefore, it is better to do so with a shinui.<ref>Rabbi Ribiat (“The 39 Melochos” pg. 461) sides with Rav Moshe that really me'ikar hadin one may mash the banana without a shinuy because mashing is not considered tochen. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:27) agrees to the Chazon Ish that mashing is considered tochen, but permits one to mash a banana with a fork to feed immediately to a child. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Menuchat Ahava 2: pg. 278), writes that he should preferably do so in an unusual manner, such as by using the handle of the fork. Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchita 6:7-8 forbids mashing a banana or avocado unless one uses a shinui. </ref>
##If it's already so soft that when one simply pulls a piece of the fruit, that piece separates from the rest of the fruit, then it is permitted to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:7 </ref>

==Various Leniencies==

=== For Immediate Consumption (לאלתר) ===
#Since there are some who hold that it is permitted to cut up raw vegetables or fruit for "immediate" consumption, and there are others who forbid, many poskim write that one should only cut up the vegetables or fruit with a knife into somewhat large pieces for "immediate" consumption.<ref>*The Rashba (Responsa 4:75) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen immediately before consumption just like it is permitted to do [[Borer]] immediately before consumption. The opinion of the Rashba is codified as halacha in the Rama 321:12. The Magen Avraham 321:15, however, quotes the Shiltei Giborim who questions this leniency. Similarly, the Chazon Ish OC 57 seems to prohibit chopping into small pieces even for immediate use in opposition to the Rashba.
*In discussing the Rashba, the Beit Yosef 321 writes that in order to satisfy all opinions one should cut the item into somewhat big pieces and then eat it immediately. The Chaye Adam (Klal 17:2) rules that for immediate consumption one may cut vegetables into somewhat large pieces in accordance with the Beit Yosef. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2) writes that the view of the Chazon Ish 57 that prohibits chopping into small pieces even for immediate use is a lone view and against the common practice. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Ohr Litzion 1:28) is also lenient. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 first writes that since some Rishonim disagree with the Rashba one should follow the compromise of the Beit Yosef to cut it up into somewhat large pieces. Nonetheless, he concludes, that one who cuts it up into very small pieces for immediate consumption has what to rely on. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 agrees.</ref>
##Sephardim hold that for immediate consumption it is permitted to cut up a vegetable even into small pieces. However, it is praiseworthy to be strict to only cut it into big pieces.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
##For a child or someone who can't eat large pieces, there is what to rely upon to cut it up into small pieces, as long as one does so right before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
##The above leniency is only if one uses a regular knife, but not a special dicing utensil.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#How do we define "immediate consumption"?
##It is considered "immediate" as long as one makes the salad right before beginning the meal in which it will be eaten.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
###If one plans on going to shul, then one should make the salad after coming back from shul, not before.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45</ref>
##The above leniency applies whether one is preparing for one's own immediate consumption or another person's.<ref>Bet Yosef 321 based on the Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 74a s.v. [[Borer]] UMayni'ach) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen for another person's immediate consumption just like it is permitted to do Tochen for one's own immediate consumption. Mishna Brurah 321:43 agrees.</ref>
##If one made a salad for one meal and there was leftovers, one is allowed to eat it at another meal.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>

=== Pre-crushed Food (אין טוחן אחר טוחן) ===
#Food that was made from crushed particles may be crushed on [[Shabbat]] if one will eat it on shabbat. This is based on the principle of "ein tochen achar tochen" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen)<ref>This is based on the principle of "אין טוחן אחר טוחן" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen). There are different explanations given in the achronim to explain why one can't violate tochen a second time.

*(1) The Chazon Ish (OC:57 s.v. inyan), cited by Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 321 footnote 55), explains that really the point here is that a substance which was joined together by a human being (as opposed to naturally forming) isn't really considered to be unified in a real way. Hence, the bread, which is made up of flour particles that were joined together via kneading it with water, isn't considered a unit and thus not subject to tochen. This is different than wheat, which formed naturally and so is considered a unit, and therefore would be subject to tochen.

*(2) The Gra (biur hagra 321:16) comments on the Rama that the same is true for every melacha. Clearly then, he understands that the principle of "no tochen after tochen" is not saying anything particular about tochen (i.e. not like the chazon ish). Rather, it is a general point about melacha. One cannot violate the melacha a second time, presumably because it is no longer really accomplishing something significant. This is thus similar to the principle of "no bishul after bishul", that once something is cooked, it cannot be cooked again (unless perhaps if it is liquid and it cools down).

*(3) Rebbe Akiva Eiger seems to have a different understanding. The Shulchan Aruch 302:7 says that one may not use their fingernail to scratch off dry dirt from their clothing, because this would inevitably grind up the dirt and thereby violate tochen. Rebbe Akiva Eiger there asks why this should be a problem of tochen given that in general we hold "no tochen after tochen", and certainly this dirt was initially disparate and only became a unit after drying up. He is clearly arguing on the chazon ish, as he's applying ein tochen achar tochen even to a case when it naturally formed. He is also seemingly against the Gra, because he's applying ein tochen achar tochen to a case when it was never actually ground up by before, but merely started off disparate and then joined together on its own. He seems to understand that as long as a unit began as disparate pieces, then there will be no problem of tochen to grind it up. Tochen is only relevant on something which was always a unit, such as wheat and the like.</ref>
##For example, one may crush [[matza]], bread, crackers, chocolate, and sugar.<ref>The Rama 321:12 rules that it is permitted to crush up bread because the flour was already ground up when it was made. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 extends this to breaking up [[matza]], crackers, chocolate, and sugar.</ref>
#Food which was crushed very well before [[Shabbat]], or on [[Shabbat]] in a permissible way, may be further cut on [[Shabbat]] even in the normal fashion.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:12 </ref>
#If someone made farina or rice porridge before Shabbat and now on Shabbat it is dry, one may pour hot water even from a ''Kli Rishon'' onto the farina or rice porridge to dilute it and mix it up. One may even crush the clumps with a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:13 </ref>

=== Foods not From the Ground (אינו גידולי קרקע) ===
#Even though there is an issue of tochen on non-food items as well as food items, foods that do not grow from the ground such as meat, eggs, and cheese are not subject to the prohibition of tochen.<ref>Gemara Shabbos 74b writes that one who grinds firewood into small pieces is chayav for tochen. Rambam Shabbos 7:5 includes grinding metal as a tolda of tochen. The Minchat Chinuch (Musach Hashabbos Tochen 4) concludes based on the Rambam’s example that tochen applies to items which are not gidulei karka, and he adds that this is also the view of Rashi (gemara 74b s.v. “Sheva”), who writes that there is a prohibition of tochen for clods of Earth. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 321:10) writes that both dirt and metal may be considered gidulei karka. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 321:9, based on Terumat Hadeshen 56, writes that one may cut cooked meat into very small pieces. Mishna Brurah 321:31 explains that this is because it isn’t gidulei karka and therefore the prohibition doesn’t apply. Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:14 and Yalkut Yosef (Shabbos, vol 3, pg 391) extend this to eggs and cheese. Shoneh Halachot 321:24 quotes the Chazon Ish that one may not be lenient with things that do not grow in the ground unless the intention is to eat them immediately.</ref>
#One may not grind up raw meat on Shabbat, since otherwise it isn't edible.<ref>Rama 321:9, Kaf Hachaim 324:29</ref> If it is for immediate consumption it is permitted.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:33, Tiferet 321:47 citing Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 4 p. 270</ref>

=== Cooked Fruits and Vegetables ===
#Fruits or vegetables which were cooked to the point that it is very easy to mash may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. It can be mashed on Shabbat even with the prongs of a fork, but not a strainer.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:9</ref> Some say that it isn't permitted to mash unless its shape partially was crushed or fell apart because of the cooking.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (English Version p. 73) clearly translates that vegetables cooked before Shabbat need to be already crushed in that they have changed their shape or fallen apart. This is certainly the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (ch. 6 fnt. 22). However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:9 implies that essentially if it is very soft then it is permissible to mash on Shabbat even if it didn't lose its shape. See also 6:10. Orchot Shabbat 5:9 similarly sounds like it is permitted with the same conditions and doesn't require that the shape change or fall apart. The Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2923 cites the Nishmat Shabbat 321:317:4 who is lenient and the Hilchot Shabbat BShabbat (ch. 11 fnt. 41) who is strict.</ref>

=== Changing the Utensil (שינוי גמור) ===

# If one completely changes the utensil to perform tochen (instead of using the typical utensil), then it is permitted.<ref>The gemara shabbat 141a cites Rava as holding that if one uses the back of a knife to crush pepper, it is permitted because one is using a shinuy. This is quite surprising, since if crushing it up normally would constitute an isur deorayta, why should it be permitted just because one does it with a shinuy? Typically speaking, doing melacha k'la'achar yad (i.e. in the abnormal way) is still rabbinically prohibited, so why should this be different? The Beit Yosef siman 321 cites from the Shibolei Haleket siman 92 as explaining that here it is a shinuy gamur (lit: complete change), and therefore it has the ability to permit even a biblical prohibition. Changing from a stone mortar and pestle to a wooden one is the first shinuy, and changing to the back of a knife is a second shinuy. The idea is presumably that since this is so different from the typical way the melacha is done, chazal weren't concerned that if someone did it this way they would come to violate the biblical prohibition, and so chazal weren't gozer. </ref>
## For example, pepper is usually ground in a mortar and pestle, so it is permitted to grind it using the back of a knife (instead of a pestle) on a plate or on the table (instead of a mortar).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 321:7 and Mishna Brurah 321:25.</ref>
## Similarly, salt may be crushed up with the back of a knife, on a plate or the table.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 321:8</ref>
# Salt granules which solidified because of a moisture may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. However, one may not crush salt crystals (looking like blocks) or any other spice which has never yet been crushed, unless one does two Shinui's (changes) by using the handle of the knife or fork on a plate or the table.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 </ref>

==Grinding for a Small Child==

#One can be lenient to cut a food very small for a small child to eat, so long as it is done immediately prior to the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Iggeros Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2. </ref>
#If one wants to mash a banana or avocado for a small child (see above section on whether "mashing" is included in tochen), one should do it with a shinuy (lit: variation), such as using the handle of a fork or a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:8 </ref>

==Utensils Designed for Grinding==

#Any tool which is designated for crushing or the like, such as a mortar and pestle, or a knife used only for dicing, may not be used in any manner on shabbat, even to chop into very big pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:2, Sh”t Rivash 184</ref>
#List of Forbidden utensils:
##One should not use an onion slicer (a machine which is made of a set of knifes that surrounds the onion and dices it).<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 [I'm not entirely clear about what an onion slicer is.] </ref>
##A vegetable chopper (with blades fitted with springs on an axis) is forbidden since it chops vegetables thinly.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
##It’s forbidden to grind coffee beans it a grinder meant for it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>
##A cucumber or tomato slicer may not be used on Shabbat.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2891 quotes Rav Elyashiv (Zachor Vshamor ch. 1 fnt. 30) that a tomato slicer is a problem of tochen and Dor Hamelaktim compares it to a cucumber slicer.</ref>
##Potatoes or vegetables which were cooked may not be put through a strainer in order to puree it (as the strainer is designated for that purpose). However, one is permitted to crush it with a fork (even the prongs), as long as it was cooked to the point that it's easy to crush.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
##One shouldn’t use a strainer to puree or cream a cooked fruit or vegetable, since the strainer has a designated purpose of being used to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#List of Permitted utensils:
##An egg slicer (with equally spaced wires that slice the egg when pressed) is permitted.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
##A special cheese knife isn’t a utensil designated to be used for chopping finely.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11. See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (6 no. 9) citing R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where he discusses that with a cheese grater there is an issur of uvdin d’chol even if one will eat the grated cheese immediately based on the Rivash 184. However, one can use a knife and even perhaps a special chopping knife if one will eat the food subsequently in the meal since cutting is not exactly like regular tochein, which is closer to grating or mashing. </ref>
##One may cut bread in a machine (manual, non-electric) which cuts slices of bread.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 (note) </ref>
##It’s permissible to cut vegetables on a cutting board, even if it makes lines in the board.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
##It’s permissible to use a peeler to peel vegetables on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 391) </ref>

==Related Pages==

#[[Medicine on Shabbat|Taking Medicine on Shabbat]] (which is a rabbinic decree because of [[grinding]]) <ref>Gemara 53b and Rashi s.v. Gezeira </ref>

==Links==
# [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718686/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/The_Shabbos_Kitchen:_Slicing_and_Dicing_(tochen) The Shabbos Kitchen: Slicing and Dicing (Tochen)] by Rabbi Shalom Rosner# [http://www.tlc.jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_1_Back_to_the_Grind.pdf Back to the Grind] on Jewish Pathways

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-31T01:43:30Z

Gsilver2: /* For Immediate Consumption */

{{Template:Good}}
[[File:Grinding.jpg|thumb]]
Tochen (lit: grinding) is one of the 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. Below are its relevant details and practical applications.

==Definition==

#The melacha is defined as the constructive reduction of a large singular entity into small parts whereby it serves a new purpose.<ref>Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot 7:2 </ref>
##Examples include chopping wood into small chips for a fire, shaving down a metal rod to form small strips, and dicing vegetables to cook them.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 8:15 </ref>
##The prohibition of Tochen ([[grinding]]) includes chopping, grating, crushing, mashing, shredding, or breaking something into small pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 </ref>
#Tochen also applies to non-foods. For example it's forbidden to crush a clod of dirt, shave splinters off a piece of wood, sawing wood with intent for the dust.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 in the note, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>

=== In the Mishkan ===

# Tochen (grinding) was performed in the mishkan in the process of crushing herbs to make dyes.<ref>Rashi Shabbos 73a s.v. HaOfeh. See 39 Melochos (Rabbi Ribiat vol. 2, Zoreiah footnote 7) </ref>

=== Toldot ===
#Cutting up vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them and shaving down a metal rod are examples of toldot of Tochen.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:5, 8:15, 21:18 </ref>

== How Small is Small? ==

=== Making a Salad ===
# It is forbidden to cut vegetables into very small pieces.<ref>The gemara shabbat 74b cites Rav Papa as stating that one who is פרים סילקא (lit: chops up beets) into small pieces has violated the melacha of tochen. This is Rashi's girsa in the gemara there. However, according to many rishonim, it is actually not so simple that merely chopping vegetables would be a problem of tochen.

*(1) The Rosh 7:5 cites from Rabbenu Chananel that the correct pshat in the gemara is one who grinds up twigs into sawdust. The Rosh asks how Rashi could think that merely chopping up vegetables would be a violation of tochen. The Korban Netanel 10 explains that the Torah wouldn't have prohibited chopping up vegetables because it's impossible to give a clear guideline as to how small is small, and because this type of chopping doesn't really have a significant effect on the vegetable (in contrast to grinding wheat into flour, which completely changes the character of the wheat into a new entity). Thus, according to the Rosh / R"C, there is never an issue of tochen with chopping vegetables.

*(2) Tosfot (shabbat 74b s.v. high) is seemingly bothered by the Rosh's question on Rashi, and so even though he learns the gemara like Rashi (that the gemara is discussing chopping up beets), he limits it by stating that only beets are included in this prohibition, but not other vegetables. He doesn't explain what makes beets unique that only they would be subject to tochen if chopped up into small pieces. Minchat Chinuch (tochen 2) explains that tosfot means to distinguish between vegetables that can be eaten raw and those that need to be cooked. Beets must be cooked, and so chopping is viewed as the preparatory step towards cooking, and thus a more significant act. In contrast, when one chops up a vegetable that doesn't need to be cooked, this is viewed as just part of the eating process.

*(3) This idea is explicitly stated by the Ritva 74b, that only beets and other vegetables which are not eaten raw would be subject to this prohibition of tochen.

*(4) There are some who suggest that the Rambam agrees to a variation of this idea as well. He writes in a few places that one has violated tochen when they chop up vegetables into small pieces "כדי לבשלו" (lit: in order to cook them). It sounds like he thinks that only if the chopping is a preparatory step in the cooking process is it viewed as a significant act that would be defined as melacha [this is still slightly different than the Ritva; if there is a vegetable that can be eaten raw, but one chops it up in order to cook it, they would still be obligated according to this understanding of the Rambam, even though they would be patur according to the Ritva]. The Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 21:18) understands the Rambam this way. However, many achronim disagree (Aruch Hashulchan 321:4; Minchat Chinuch tochen 2; Biur Hagra 321:15), and think that the Rambam merely mentioned "in order to cook them" just to describe a situation in which one would chop up vegetables into small pieces, but it is not actually a requirement that the chopping be done to prepare for cooking.

*However, other rishonim agree to Rashi that there would be an issue to chop up vegetables, even if one does not intend to cook them, and even if they are edible raw. For example, Tosfot (shabbat 114b s.v. ela) states that chopping up vegetables into pieces that are "דקות מאוד" (lit: very small) violates tochen, but chopping them into big pieces is completely permitted (since this isn't considered similar at all to "grinding"). Similarly, Haga'ot Maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 21 ot 70) cites from the Rashbam that crumbling up bread is not a problem of tochen because the bread has already been ground up once (when first made, the wheat was ground into flour), and so tochen can't be violated a second time. The implication here is that without this argument to be lenient, tochen would have been applicable on bread, even though it is food, edible as it is, and one doesn't intend to cook it further.

*L'halacha, the Shulchan Aruch 321:12 paskens stringently that one who chops up vegetables into pieces that are "דק דק" (lit: very small) has violated the biblical melacha of tochen. As we have seen, many rishonim would disagree with this statement, but of course many would agree, and so the Shulchan Aruch follows the strict approach. However, there is a discussion whether the Rama agrees to this or not. The Rama writes that it is similarly prohibited to chop up figs or carrobs for old people. Why does he specify old people? The Magen Avraham 321:14 suggests that perhaps the Rama understands that it is only prohibited to chop it for old people since they are unable to eat the vegetables otherwise. This type of chopping is significant and thus deemed melacha. However, if someone is able to eat the vegetables even before the chopping, then chopping would be permitted. This is a major leniency. However, it is rejected by the Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 321:12 s.v. lifnei), who suggests that really the Rama just mentioned old people because that was the common case, but it was not meant to exclude other people. Practically then, the halacha is that one may not chop vegetables into very small pieces even for one who is able to eat them otherwise.</ref>
## Some say it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to cut up vegetables into very small pieces even though it is not for immediate consumption (e.g. Friday night after the meal for the purpose of lunch the next day).<ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=128698 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Lech Lecha 5781, min 41-52)] explains that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to chop up vegetables for a salad for lunch far in advance since there are some opinions in the rishonim who would permit it since the vegetables were edible raw. </ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into pieces that are somewhat large, immediately before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:6. This is based on the leniency of the Rashbah (discussed below) that one may perform tochen right before consumption. The Beit Yosef isn't willing to rely upon the Rashbah fully, but he suggests that if one chops up the vegetables a little bit bigger than normal (such that it might not be "דק דק"), then one can rely upon the Rashbah to do so right before the meal. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 paskens this way as well.</ref>
## What is considered somewhat large?
### This is a debate amongst the poskim.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913-5 cites 3 main approaches:
*Rav Belsky (OU Documents S-34) holds that the size for tochen is cutting it smaller than one usually cuts. Rav Elyashiv (Am Mekadshei Sheviyi 1:6:4) and Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 39) concur.
*Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130) write that it is a problem of tochen if one cuts it to a size that people consider very small.
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2) seems to hold that as long as one still needs to chew on it to eat it (and can't just swallow it), it is big enough to not violate tochen. 39 Melachos v. 2 p. 458 seems to apply Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's opinion to permit cutting any salad, since it will still need to be chewed. However, he concludes that we do not follow that opinion. Minchat Ish 3:4:4 s.v. vheneh has a different interpretation of Rav Shlomo Zalmen which is more strict. RSZ didn't mean that if it's big enough that it can't be swallowed then it is permitted to cut it to that size; rather, RSZ is just saying that if it is a little small then it has made the chewing process easier and is considered tochen.
*Lastly, they cite Zachor Vshamor (Tochen 2) who says that if the pieces are larger than 1/2 cm cubed, then it is certainly not considered very small.</ref>
#### Some define it as pieces which are unable to be swallowed whole and must be chewed.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that are cut larger than typically cut during the week.<ref>39 Melachos v. 2 p. 460, Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2914 citing Chazon Ish 57 s.v. vheneh, Brit Olam (Tochen 20), Az Nidbaru 11:8, 12:22, Shabbos Kitchen ch. 9 fnt. 19, Rivevot Efraim 5:260:3, Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 91)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that most people would consider small.<ref>Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130)</ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into large pieces, even far in advance of a meal.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913</ref>

=== Slicing Along a Single Axis ===
#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of tochen applies only if the food is being cut very small in all dimensions or if it even applies if one is slicing in one direction, such as when slicing an egg or tomato.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 3) writes that slicing foods in one direction isn’t considered tochen because otherwise there would be no limit. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sh”t Minchat Shlomo 91:13) also rules this way. On the other hand, Ketzot HaShulchan Siman 129 Badei HaShulchan 2 quotes that the Tzemach Tzedek was stringent. Additionally, Orchot Shabbos page 217 chapter 5:footnote 12 writes that Rav Elyashiv was stringent as well. </ref>

=== Mashing ===

#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of Tochen applies to fruit or vegetables (such as bananas and avocados) that do not separate into individual pieces when mashed, but rather just change shape and remain one large mass.<ref>The Tosefta (Beitza 1:19) says that "Pressed or dried figs cannot be crushed before the elderly." The Chazon Ish (57, “nimtzeinu”) writes that when pressed or dried figs are crushed, they remain one mass, and therefore even in such a case tochen is applicable. In light of this, the Chazon Ish writes that it is forbidden to mash a banana even though it remains one mass after being mashed. He thinks that this is forbidden even for immediate eating (since he rejects the leniency of the Rashba, and thinks that even the Rashba was only lenient by chopping vegetables, but wouldn't be lenient here). Therefore, he says one must mash the banana with a shinui. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 2) rules that mashing is not subject to the prohibition of Tochen (since you aren't actually separating it into different parts), and thus the banana may be mashed in the regular manner. He also thinks that if there would be an isur of tochen here, then it shouldn't be mutar just because you do it with a shinuy. He nevertheless concludes that if possible, one should mash the banana with a shinui in order to be machmir for the position of the Chazon Ish. </ref>
##Therefore, it is better to do so with a shinui.<ref>Rabbi Ribiat (“The 39 Melochos” pg. 461) sides with Rav Moshe that really me'ikar hadin one may mash the banana without a shinuy because mashing is not considered tochen. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:27) agrees to the Chazon Ish that mashing is considered tochen, but permits one to mash a banana with a fork to feed immediately to a child. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Menuchat Ahava 2: pg. 278), writes that he should preferably do so in an unusual manner, such as by using the handle of the fork. Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchita 6:7-8 forbids mashing a banana or avocado unless one uses a shinui. </ref>
##If it's already so soft that when one simply pulls a piece of the fruit, that piece separates from the rest of the fruit, then it is permitted to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:7 </ref>

==Various Leniencies==

=== For Immediate Consumption (לאלתר) ===
#Since there are some who hold that it is permitted to cut up raw vegetables or fruit for "immediate" consumption, and there are others who forbid, many poskim write that one should only cut up the vegetables or fruit with a knife into somewhat large pieces for "immediate" consumption.<ref>*The Rashba (Responsa 4:75) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen immediately before consumption just like it is permitted to do [[Borer]] immediately before consumption. The opinion of the Rashba is codified as halacha in the Rama 321:12. The Magen Avraham 321:15, however, quotes the Shiltei Giborim who questions this leniency. Similarly, the Chazon Ish OC 57 seems to prohibit chopping into small pieces even for immediate use in opposition to the Rashba.
*In discussing the Rashba, the Beit Yosef 321 writes that in order to satisfy all opinions one should cut the item into somewhat big pieces and then eat it immediately. The Chaye Adam (Klal 17:2) rules that for immediate consumption one may cut vegetables into somewhat large pieces in accordance with the Beit Yosef. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2) writes that the view of the Chazon Ish 57 that prohibits chopping into small pieces even for immediate use is a lone view and against the common practice. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Ohr Litzion 1:28) is also lenient. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 first writes that since some Rishonim disagree with the Rashba one should follow the compromise of the Beit Yosef to cut it up into somewhat large pieces. Nonetheless, he concludes, that one who cuts it up into very small pieces for immediate consumption has what to rely on. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 agrees.</ref>
##Sephardim hold that for immediate consumption it is permitted to cut up a vegetable even into small pieces. However, it is praiseworthy to be strict to only cut it into big pieces.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
##For a child or someone who can't eat large pieces, there is what to rely upon to cut it up into small pieces, as long as one does so right before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
##The above leniency is only if one uses a regular knife, but not a special dicing utensil.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#How do we define "immediate consumption"?
##It is considered "immediate" as long as one makes the salad right before beginning the meal in which it will be eaten.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
###If one plans on going to shul, then one should make the salad after coming back from shul, not before.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45</ref>
##The above leniency applies whether one is preparing for one's own immediate consumption or another person's.<ref>Bet Yosef 321 based on the Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 74a s.v. [[Borer]] UMayni'ach) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen for another person's immediate consumption just like it is permitted to do Tochen for one's own immediate consumption. Mishna Brurah 321:43 agrees.</ref>
##If one made a salad for one meal and there was leftovers, one is allowed to eat it at another meal.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>

=== Pre-crushed Food (אין טוחן אחר טוחן) ===
#Food that was made from crushed particles may be crushed on [[Shabbat]] if one will eat it on shabbat. This is based on the principle of "ein tochen achar tochen" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen)<ref>This is based on the principle of "אין טוחן אחר טוחן" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen). There are different explanations given in the achronim to explain why one can't violate tochen a second time.

*(1) The Chazon Ish (OC:57 s.v. inyan), cited by Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 321 footnote 55), explains that really the point here is that a substance which was joined together by a human being (as opposed to naturally forming) isn't really considered to be unified in a real way. Hence, the bread, which is made up of flour particles that were joined together via kneading it with water, isn't considered a unit and thus not subject to tochen. This is different than wheat, which formed naturally and so is considered a unit, and therefore would be subject to tochen.

*(2) The Gra (biur hagra 321:16) comments on the Rama that the same is true for every melacha. Clearly then, he understands that the principle of "no tochen after tochen" is not saying anything particular about tochen (i.e. not like the chazon ish). Rather, it is a general point about melacha. One cannot violate the melacha a second time, presumably because it is no longer really accomplishing something significant. This is thus similar to the principle of "no bishul after bishul", that once something is cooked, it cannot be cooked again (unless perhaps if it is liquid and it cools down).

*(3) Rebbe Akiva Eiger seems to have a different understanding. The Shulchan Aruch 302:7 says that one may not use their fingernail to scratch off dry dirt from their clothing, because this would inevitably grind up the dirt and thereby violate tochen. Rebbe Akiva Eiger there asks why this should be a problem of tochen given that in general we hold "no tochen after tochen", and certainly this dirt was initially disparate and only became a unit after drying up. He is clearly arguing on the chazon ish, as he's applying ein tochen achar tochen even to a case when it naturally formed. He is also seemingly against the Gra, because he's applying ein tochen achar tochen to a case when it was never actually ground up by before, but merely started off disparate and then joined together on its own. He seems to understand that as long as a unit began as disparate pieces, then there will be no problem of tochen to grind it up. Tochen is only relevant on something which was always a unit, such as wheat and the like.</ref>
##For example, one may crush [[matza]], bread, crackers, chocolate, and sugar.<ref>The Rama 321:12 rules that it is permitted to crush up bread because the flour was already ground up when it was made. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 extends this to breaking up [[matza]], crackers, chocolate, and sugar.</ref>
#Food which was crushed very well before [[Shabbat]], or on [[Shabbat]] in a permissible way, may be further cut on [[Shabbat]] even in the normal fashion.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:12 </ref>
#If someone made farina or rice porridge before Shabbat and now on Shabbat it is dry, one may pour hot water even from a ''Kli Rishon'' onto the farina or rice porridge to dilute it and mix it up. One may even crush the clumps with a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:13 </ref>

=== Foods not From the Ground (אינו גידולי קרקע) ===
#Even though there is an issue of tochen on non-food items as well as food items, foods that do not grow from the ground such as meat, eggs, and cheese are not subject to the prohibition of tochen.<ref>Gemara Shabbos 74b writes that one who grinds firewood into small pieces is chayav for tochen. Rambam Shabbos 7:5 includes grinding metal as a tolda of tochen. The Minchat Chinuch (Musach Hashabbos Tochen 4) concludes based on the Rambam’s example that tochen applies to items which are not gidulei karka, and he adds that this is also the view of Rashi (gemara 74b s.v. “Sheva”), who writes that there is a prohibition of tochen for clods of Earth. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 321:10) writes that both dirt and metal may be considered gidulei karka. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 321:9, based on Terumat Hadeshen 56, writes that one may cut cooked meat into very small pieces. Mishna Brurah 321:31 explains that this is because it isn’t gidulei karka and therefore the prohibition doesn’t apply. Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:14 and Yalkut Yosef (Shabbos, vol 3, pg 391) extend this to eggs and cheese. Shoneh Halachot 321:24 quotes the Chazon Ish that one may not be lenient with things that do not grow in the ground unless the intention is to eat them immediately.</ref>
#One may not grind up raw meat on Shabbat, since otherwise it isn't edible.<ref>Rama 321:9, Kaf Hachaim 324:29</ref> If it is for immediate consumption it is permitted.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:33, Tiferet 321:47 citing Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 4 p. 270</ref>

=== Cooked Fruits and Vegetables ===
#Fruits or vegetables which were cooked to the point that it is very easy to mash may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. It can be mashed on Shabbat even with the prongs of a fork, but not a strainer.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:9</ref> Some say that it isn't permitted to mash unless its shape partially was crushed or fell apart because of the cooking.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (English Version p. 73) clearly translates that vegetables cooked before Shabbat need to be already crushed in that they have changed their shape or fallen apart. This is certainly the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (ch. 6 fnt. 22). However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:9 implies that essentially if it is very soft then it is permissible to mash on Shabbat even if it didn't lose its shape. See also 6:10. Orchot Shabbat 5:9 similarly sounds like it is permitted with the same conditions and doesn't require that the shape change or fall apart. The Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2923 cites the Nishmat Shabbat 321:317:4 who is lenient and the Hilchot Shabbat BShabbat (ch. 11 fnt. 41) who is strict.</ref>

==Grinding for a Small Child==

#One can be lenient to cut a food very small for a small child to eat, so long as it is done immediately prior to the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Iggeros Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2. </ref>
#If one wants to mash a banana or avocado for a small child (see above section on whether "mashing" is included in tochen), one should do it with a shinuy (lit: variation), such as using the handle of a fork or a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:8 </ref>

==Utensils Designed for Grinding==

#Any tool which is designated for crushing or the like such as a mortar or a knife used only for dicing may not be used in any manner even if it doesn't involve any prohibition of Tochen. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:2, Sh”t Rivash 184</ref>
#One should not use an onion slicer (a machine which is made of a set of knifes that surrounds the onion and dices it). <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 [I'm not entirely clear about what an onion slicer is.] </ref>
#A vegetable chopper (with blades fitted with springs on an axis) is forbidden since it chops vegetables thinly. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#An egg slicer (with equally spaced wires that slice the egg when pressed) is permitted. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#A special cheese knife isn’t a utensil designated to be used for chopping finely. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11. See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (6 no. 9) citing R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where he discusses that with a cheese grater there is an issur of uvdin d’chol even if one will eat the grated cheese immediately based on the Rivash 184. However, one can use a knife and even perhaps a special chopping knife if one will eat the food subsequently in the meal since cutting is not exactly like regular tochein, which is closer to grating or mashing. </ref>
#One may cut bread in a machine (manual, non-electric) which cuts slices of bread. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 (note) </ref>
#It’s forbidden to grind coffee beans it a grinder meant for it. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>
#It’s permissible to cut vegetables on a cutting board even if it makes lines in the board. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
#It’s permissible to use a peeler to peel vegetables on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 391) </ref>
#A cucumber or tomato slicer may not be used on Shabbat.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2891 quotes Rav Elyashiv (Zachor Vshamor ch. 1 fnt. 30) that a tomato slicer is a problem of tochen and Dor Hamelaktim compares it to a cucumber slicer.</ref>
#Potatoes or vegetables which were cooked may not be put through a strainer in order to puree it (as the strainer is designated for that purpose) but one is permitted to crush it with a fork (even the prongs) as long as it was cooked to the point that it's easy to crush. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#One shouldn’t use a strainer to puree or cream a cooked fruit or vegetable since the strainer has a designated purpose of being used to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#Salt granules which solidified because of a moisture may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. However, one may not crush salt crystals (looking like blocks) or any other spice which has never yet been crushed, unless one does two Shinui's (changes) by using the handle of the knife or fork on a plate or the table.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 </ref>

==Related Pages==

#[[Medicine on Shabbat|Taking Medicine on Shabbat]] (which is a rabbinic decree because of [[grinding]]) <ref>Gemara 53b and Rashi s.v. Gezeira </ref>

==Links==
# [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718686/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/The_Shabbos_Kitchen:_Slicing_and_Dicing_(tochen) The Shabbos Kitchen: Slicing and Dicing (Tochen)] by Rabbi Shalom Rosner# [http://www.tlc.jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_1_Back_to_the_Grind.pdf Back to the Grind] on Jewish Pathways

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-31T01:42:20Z

Gsilver2: /* Chopping Vegetables for a Salad */

{{Template:Good}}
[[File:Grinding.jpg|thumb]]
Tochen (lit: grinding) is one of the 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. Below are its relevant details and practical applications.

==Definition==

#The melacha is defined as the constructive reduction of a large singular entity into small parts whereby it serves a new purpose.<ref>Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot 7:2 </ref>
##Examples include chopping wood into small chips for a fire, shaving down a metal rod to form small strips, and dicing vegetables to cook them.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 8:15 </ref>
##The prohibition of Tochen ([[grinding]]) includes chopping, grating, crushing, mashing, shredding, or breaking something into small pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 </ref>
#Tochen also applies to non-foods. For example it's forbidden to crush a clod of dirt, shave splinters off a piece of wood, sawing wood with intent for the dust.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 in the note, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>

=== In the Mishkan ===

# Tochen (grinding) was performed in the mishkan in the process of crushing herbs to make dyes.<ref>Rashi Shabbos 73a s.v. HaOfeh. See 39 Melochos (Rabbi Ribiat vol. 2, Zoreiah footnote 7) </ref>

=== Toldot ===
#Cutting up vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them and shaving down a metal rod are examples of toldot of Tochen.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:5, 8:15, 21:18 </ref>

== How Small is Small? ==

=== Making a Salad ===
# It is forbidden to cut vegetables into very small pieces.<ref>The gemara shabbat 74b cites Rav Papa as stating that one who is פרים סילקא (lit: chops up beets) into small pieces has violated the melacha of tochen. This is Rashi's girsa in the gemara there. However, according to many rishonim, it is actually not so simple that merely chopping vegetables would be a problem of tochen.

*(1) The Rosh 7:5 cites from Rabbenu Chananel that the correct pshat in the gemara is one who grinds up twigs into sawdust. The Rosh asks how Rashi could think that merely chopping up vegetables would be a violation of tochen. The Korban Netanel 10 explains that the Torah wouldn't have prohibited chopping up vegetables because it's impossible to give a clear guideline as to how small is small, and because this type of chopping doesn't really have a significant effect on the vegetable (in contrast to grinding wheat into flour, which completely changes the character of the wheat into a new entity). Thus, according to the Rosh / R"C, there is never an issue of tochen with chopping vegetables.

*(2) Tosfot (shabbat 74b s.v. high) is seemingly bothered by the Rosh's question on Rashi, and so even though he learns the gemara like Rashi (that the gemara is discussing chopping up beets), he limits it by stating that only beets are included in this prohibition, but not other vegetables. He doesn't explain what makes beets unique that only they would be subject to tochen if chopped up into small pieces. Minchat Chinuch (tochen 2) explains that tosfot means to distinguish between vegetables that can be eaten raw and those that need to be cooked. Beets must be cooked, and so chopping is viewed as the preparatory step towards cooking, and thus a more significant act. In contrast, when one chops up a vegetable that doesn't need to be cooked, this is viewed as just part of the eating process.

*(3) This idea is explicitly stated by the Ritva 74b, that only beets and other vegetables which are not eaten raw would be subject to this prohibition of tochen.

*(4) There are some who suggest that the Rambam agrees to a variation of this idea as well. He writes in a few places that one has violated tochen when they chop up vegetables into small pieces "כדי לבשלו" (lit: in order to cook them). It sounds like he thinks that only if the chopping is a preparatory step in the cooking process is it viewed as a significant act that would be defined as melacha [this is still slightly different than the Ritva; if there is a vegetable that can be eaten raw, but one chops it up in order to cook it, they would still be obligated according to this understanding of the Rambam, even though they would be patur according to the Ritva]. The Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 21:18) understands the Rambam this way. However, many achronim disagree (Aruch Hashulchan 321:4; Minchat Chinuch tochen 2; Biur Hagra 321:15), and think that the Rambam merely mentioned "in order to cook them" just to describe a situation in which one would chop up vegetables into small pieces, but it is not actually a requirement that the chopping be done to prepare for cooking.

*However, other rishonim agree to Rashi that there would be an issue to chop up vegetables, even if one does not intend to cook them, and even if they are edible raw. For example, Tosfot (shabbat 114b s.v. ela) states that chopping up vegetables into pieces that are "דקות מאוד" (lit: very small) violates tochen, but chopping them into big pieces is completely permitted (since this isn't considered similar at all to "grinding"). Similarly, Haga'ot Maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 21 ot 70) cites from the Rashbam that crumbling up bread is not a problem of tochen because the bread has already been ground up once (when first made, the wheat was ground into flour), and so tochen can't be violated a second time. The implication here is that without this argument to be lenient, tochen would have been applicable on bread, even though it is food, edible as it is, and one doesn't intend to cook it further.

*L'halacha, the Shulchan Aruch 321:12 paskens stringently that one who chops up vegetables into pieces that are "דק דק" (lit: very small) has violated the biblical melacha of tochen. As we have seen, many rishonim would disagree with this statement, but of course many would agree, and so the Shulchan Aruch follows the strict approach. However, there is a discussion whether the Rama agrees to this or not. The Rama writes that it is similarly prohibited to chop up figs or carrobs for old people. Why does he specify old people? The Magen Avraham 321:14 suggests that perhaps the Rama understands that it is only prohibited to chop it for old people since they are unable to eat the vegetables otherwise. This type of chopping is significant and thus deemed melacha. However, if someone is able to eat the vegetables even before the chopping, then chopping would be permitted. This is a major leniency. However, it is rejected by the Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 321:12 s.v. lifnei), who suggests that really the Rama just mentioned old people because that was the common case, but it was not meant to exclude other people. Practically then, the halacha is that one may not chop vegetables into very small pieces even for one who is able to eat them otherwise.</ref>
## Some say it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to cut up vegetables into very small pieces even though it is not for immediate consumption (e.g. Friday night after the meal for the purpose of lunch the next day).<ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=128698 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Lech Lecha 5781, min 41-52)] explains that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to chop up vegetables for a salad for lunch far in advance since there are some opinions in the rishonim who would permit it since the vegetables were edible raw. </ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into pieces that are somewhat large, immediately before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:6. This is based on the leniency of the Rashbah (discussed below) that one may perform tochen right before consumption. The Beit Yosef isn't willing to rely upon the Rashbah fully, but he suggests that if one chops up the vegetables a little bit bigger than normal (such that it might not be "דק דק"), then one can rely upon the Rashbah to do so right before the meal. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 paskens this way as well.</ref>
## What is considered somewhat large?
### This is a debate amongst the poskim.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913-5 cites 3 main approaches:
*Rav Belsky (OU Documents S-34) holds that the size for tochen is cutting it smaller than one usually cuts. Rav Elyashiv (Am Mekadshei Sheviyi 1:6:4) and Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 39) concur.
*Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130) write that it is a problem of tochen if one cuts it to a size that people consider very small.
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2) seems to hold that as long as one still needs to chew on it to eat it (and can't just swallow it), it is big enough to not violate tochen. 39 Melachos v. 2 p. 458 seems to apply Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's opinion to permit cutting any salad, since it will still need to be chewed. However, he concludes that we do not follow that opinion. Minchat Ish 3:4:4 s.v. vheneh has a different interpretation of Rav Shlomo Zalmen which is more strict. RSZ didn't mean that if it's big enough that it can't be swallowed then it is permitted to cut it to that size; rather, RSZ is just saying that if it is a little small then it has made the chewing process easier and is considered tochen.
*Lastly, they cite Zachor Vshamor (Tochen 2) who says that if the pieces are larger than 1/2 cm cubed, then it is certainly not considered very small.</ref>
#### Some define it as pieces which are unable to be swallowed whole and must be chewed.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that are cut larger than typically cut during the week.<ref>39 Melachos v. 2 p. 460, Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2914 citing Chazon Ish 57 s.v. vheneh, Brit Olam (Tochen 20), Az Nidbaru 11:8, 12:22, Shabbos Kitchen ch. 9 fnt. 19, Rivevot Efraim 5:260:3, Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 91)</ref>
#### Others define it as pieces that most people would consider small.<ref>Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130)</ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into large pieces, even far in advance of a meal.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913</ref>

=== Slicing Along a Single Axis ===
#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of tochen applies only if the food is being cut very small in all dimensions or if it even applies if one is slicing in one direction, such as when slicing an egg or tomato.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 3) writes that slicing foods in one direction isn’t considered tochen because otherwise there would be no limit. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sh”t Minchat Shlomo 91:13) also rules this way. On the other hand, Ketzot HaShulchan Siman 129 Badei HaShulchan 2 quotes that the Tzemach Tzedek was stringent. Additionally, Orchot Shabbos page 217 chapter 5:footnote 12 writes that Rav Elyashiv was stringent as well. </ref>

=== Mashing ===

#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of Tochen applies to fruit or vegetables (such as bananas and avocados) that do not separate into individual pieces when mashed, but rather just change shape and remain one large mass.<ref>The Tosefta (Beitza 1:19) says that "Pressed or dried figs cannot be crushed before the elderly." The Chazon Ish (57, “nimtzeinu”) writes that when pressed or dried figs are crushed, they remain one mass, and therefore even in such a case tochen is applicable. In light of this, the Chazon Ish writes that it is forbidden to mash a banana even though it remains one mass after being mashed. He thinks that this is forbidden even for immediate eating (since he rejects the leniency of the Rashba, and thinks that even the Rashba was only lenient by chopping vegetables, but wouldn't be lenient here). Therefore, he says one must mash the banana with a shinui. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 2) rules that mashing is not subject to the prohibition of Tochen (since you aren't actually separating it into different parts), and thus the banana may be mashed in the regular manner. He also thinks that if there would be an isur of tochen here, then it shouldn't be mutar just because you do it with a shinuy. He nevertheless concludes that if possible, one should mash the banana with a shinui in order to be machmir for the position of the Chazon Ish. </ref>
##Therefore, it is better to do so with a shinui.<ref>Rabbi Ribiat (“The 39 Melochos” pg. 461) sides with Rav Moshe that really me'ikar hadin one may mash the banana without a shinuy because mashing is not considered tochen. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:27) agrees to the Chazon Ish that mashing is considered tochen, but permits one to mash a banana with a fork to feed immediately to a child. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Menuchat Ahava 2: pg. 278), writes that he should preferably do so in an unusual manner, such as by using the handle of the fork. Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchita 6:7-8 forbids mashing a banana or avocado unless one uses a shinui. </ref>
##If it's already so soft that when one simply pulls a piece of the fruit, that piece separates from the rest of the fruit, then it is permitted to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:7 </ref>

==For Immediate Consumption==

#Since there are some who hold that it is permitted to cut up raw vegetables or fruit for "immediate" consumption, and there are others who forbid, many poskim write that one should only cut up the vegetables or fruit with a knife into somewhat large pieces for "immediate" consumption.<ref>*The Rashba (Responsa 4:75) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen immediately before consumption just like it is permitted to do [[Borer]] immediately before consumption. The opinion of the Rashba is codified as halacha in the Rama 321:12. The Magen Avraham 321:15, however, quotes the Shiltei Giborim who questions this leniency. Similarly, the Chazon Ish OC 57 seems to prohibit chopping into small pieces even for immediate use in opposition to the Rashba.
*In discussing the Rashba, the Beit Yosef 321 writes that in order to satisfy all opinions one should cut the item into somewhat big pieces and then eat it immediately. The Chaye Adam (Klal 17:2) rules that for immediate consumption one may cut vegetables into somewhat large pieces in accordance with the Beit Yosef. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2) writes that the view of the Chazon Ish 57 that prohibits chopping into small pieces even for immediate use is a lone view and against the common practice. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Ohr Litzion 1:28) is also lenient. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 first writes that since some Rishonim disagree with the Rashba one should follow the compromise of the Beit Yosef to cut it up into somewhat large pieces. Nonetheless, he concludes, that one who cuts it up into very small pieces for immediate consumption has what to rely on. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 agrees.</ref>
##Sephardim hold that for immediate consumption it is permitted to cut up a vegetable even into small pieces. However, it is praiseworthy to be strict to only cut it into big pieces.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
##For a child or someone who can't eat large pieces, there is what to rely upon to cut it up into small pieces, as long as one does so right before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
##The above leniency is only if one uses a regular knife, but not a special dicing utensil.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#How do we define "immediate consumption"?
##It is considered "immediate" as long as one makes the salad right before beginning the meal in which it will be eaten.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
###If one plans on going to shul, then one should make the salad after coming back from shul, not before.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45</ref>
##The above leniency applies whether one is preparing for one's own immediate consumption or another person's.<ref>Bet Yosef 321 based on the Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 74a s.v. [[Borer]] UMayni'ach) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen for another person's immediate consumption just like it is permitted to do Tochen for one's own immediate consumption. Mishna Brurah 321:43 agrees.</ref>
##If one made a salad for one meal and there was leftovers, one is allowed to eat it at another meal.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>

==Various Leniencies==

=== Pre-crushed Food (אין טוחן אחר טוחן) ===
#Food that was made from crushed particles may be crushed on [[Shabbat]] if one will eat it on shabbat. This is based on the principle of "ein tochen achar tochen" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen)<ref>This is based on the principle of "אין טוחן אחר טוחן" (lit: there is no tochen after tochen). There are different explanations given in the achronim to explain why one can't violate tochen a second time.

*(1) The Chazon Ish (OC:57 s.v. inyan), cited by Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 321 footnote 55), explains that really the point here is that a substance which was joined together by a human being (as opposed to naturally forming) isn't really considered to be unified in a real way. Hence, the bread, which is made up of flour particles that were joined together via kneading it with water, isn't considered a unit and thus not subject to tochen. This is different than wheat, which formed naturally and so is considered a unit, and therefore would be subject to tochen.

*(2) The Gra (biur hagra 321:16) comments on the Rama that the same is true for every melacha. Clearly then, he understands that the principle of "no tochen after tochen" is not saying anything particular about tochen (i.e. not like the chazon ish). Rather, it is a general point about melacha. One cannot violate the melacha a second time, presumably because it is no longer really accomplishing something significant. This is thus similar to the principle of "no bishul after bishul", that once something is cooked, it cannot be cooked again (unless perhaps if it is liquid and it cools down).

*(3) Rebbe Akiva Eiger seems to have a different understanding. The Shulchan Aruch 302:7 says that one may not use their fingernail to scratch off dry dirt from their clothing, because this would inevitably grind up the dirt and thereby violate tochen. Rebbe Akiva Eiger there asks why this should be a problem of tochen given that in general we hold "no tochen after tochen", and certainly this dirt was initially disparate and only became a unit after drying up. He is clearly arguing on the chazon ish, as he's applying ein tochen achar tochen even to a case when it naturally formed. He is also seemingly against the Gra, because he's applying ein tochen achar tochen to a case when it was never actually ground up by before, but merely started off disparate and then joined together on its own. He seems to understand that as long as a unit began as disparate pieces, then there will be no problem of tochen to grind it up. Tochen is only relevant on something which was always a unit, such as wheat and the like.</ref>
##For example, one may crush [[matza]], bread, crackers, chocolate, and sugar.<ref>The Rama 321:12 rules that it is permitted to crush up bread because the flour was already ground up when it was made. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 extends this to breaking up [[matza]], crackers, chocolate, and sugar.</ref>
#Food which was crushed very well before [[Shabbat]], or on [[Shabbat]] in a permissible way, may be further cut on [[Shabbat]] even in the normal fashion.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:12 </ref>
#If someone made farina or rice porridge before Shabbat and now on Shabbat it is dry, one may pour hot water even from a ''Kli Rishon'' onto the farina or rice porridge to dilute it and mix it up. One may even crush the clumps with a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:13 </ref>

=== Foods not From the Ground ===
#Even though there is an issue of tochen on non-food items as well as food items, foods that do not grow from the ground such as meat, eggs, and cheese are not subject to the prohibition of tochen.<ref>Gemara Shabbos 74b writes that one who grinds firewood into small pieces is chayav for tochen. Rambam Shabbos 7:5 includes grinding metal as a tolda of tochen. The Minchat Chinuch (Musach Hashabbos Tochen 4) concludes based on the Rambam’s example that tochen applies to items which are not gidulei karka, and he adds that this is also the view of Rashi (gemara 74b s.v. “Sheva”), who writes that there is a prohibition of tochen for clods of Earth. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 321:10) writes that both dirt and metal may be considered gidulei karka. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 321:9, based on Terumat Hadeshen 56, writes that one may cut cooked meat into very small pieces. Mishna Brurah 321:31 explains that this is because it isn’t gidulei karka and therefore the prohibition doesn’t apply. Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:14 and Yalkut Yosef (Shabbos, vol 3, pg 391) extend this to eggs and cheese. Shoneh Halachot 321:24 quotes the Chazon Ish that one may not be lenient with things that do not grow in the ground unless the intention is to eat them immediately.</ref>
#One may not grind up raw meat on Shabbat, since otherwise it isn't edible.<ref>Rama 321:9, Kaf Hachaim 324:29</ref> If it is for immediate consumption it is permitted.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:33, Tiferet 321:47 citing Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 4 p. 270</ref>

=== Cooked Fruits and Vegetables ===
#Fruits or vegetables which were cooked to the point that it is very easy to mash may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. It can be mashed on Shabbat even with the prongs of a fork, but not a strainer.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:9</ref> Some say that it isn't permitted to mash unless its shape partially was crushed or fell apart because of the cooking.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (English Version p. 73) clearly translates that vegetables cooked before Shabbat need to be already crushed in that they have changed their shape or fallen apart. This is certainly the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (ch. 6 fnt. 22). However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:9 implies that essentially if it is very soft then it is permissible to mash on Shabbat even if it didn't lose its shape. See also 6:10. Orchot Shabbat 5:9 similarly sounds like it is permitted with the same conditions and doesn't require that the shape change or fall apart. The Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2923 cites the Nishmat Shabbat 321:317:4 who is lenient and the Hilchot Shabbat BShabbat (ch. 11 fnt. 41) who is strict.</ref>

==Grinding for a Small Child==

#One can be lenient to cut a food very small for a small child to eat, so long as it is done immediately prior to the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Iggeros Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2. </ref>
#If one wants to mash a banana or avocado for a small child (see above section on whether "mashing" is included in tochen), one should do it with a shinuy (lit: variation), such as using the handle of a fork or a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:8 </ref>

==Utensils Designed for Grinding==

#Any tool which is designated for crushing or the like such as a mortar or a knife used only for dicing may not be used in any manner even if it doesn't involve any prohibition of Tochen. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:2, Sh”t Rivash 184</ref>
#One should not use an onion slicer (a machine which is made of a set of knifes that surrounds the onion and dices it). <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 [I'm not entirely clear about what an onion slicer is.] </ref>
#A vegetable chopper (with blades fitted with springs on an axis) is forbidden since it chops vegetables thinly. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#An egg slicer (with equally spaced wires that slice the egg when pressed) is permitted. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#A special cheese knife isn’t a utensil designated to be used for chopping finely. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11. See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (6 no. 9) citing R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where he discusses that with a cheese grater there is an issur of uvdin d’chol even if one will eat the grated cheese immediately based on the Rivash 184. However, one can use a knife and even perhaps a special chopping knife if one will eat the food subsequently in the meal since cutting is not exactly like regular tochein, which is closer to grating or mashing. </ref>
#One may cut bread in a machine (manual, non-electric) which cuts slices of bread. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 (note) </ref>
#It’s forbidden to grind coffee beans it a grinder meant for it. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>
#It’s permissible to cut vegetables on a cutting board even if it makes lines in the board. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
#It’s permissible to use a peeler to peel vegetables on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 391) </ref>
#A cucumber or tomato slicer may not be used on Shabbat.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2891 quotes Rav Elyashiv (Zachor Vshamor ch. 1 fnt. 30) that a tomato slicer is a problem of tochen and Dor Hamelaktim compares it to a cucumber slicer.</ref>
#Potatoes or vegetables which were cooked may not be put through a strainer in order to puree it (as the strainer is designated for that purpose) but one is permitted to crush it with a fork (even the prongs) as long as it was cooked to the point that it's easy to crush. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#One shouldn’t use a strainer to puree or cream a cooked fruit or vegetable since the strainer has a designated purpose of being used to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#Salt granules which solidified because of a moisture may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. However, one may not crush salt crystals (looking like blocks) or any other spice which has never yet been crushed, unless one does two Shinui's (changes) by using the handle of the knife or fork on a plate or the table.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 </ref>

==Related Pages==

#[[Medicine on Shabbat|Taking Medicine on Shabbat]] (which is a rabbinic decree because of [[grinding]]) <ref>Gemara 53b and Rashi s.v. Gezeira </ref>

==Links==
# [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718686/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/The_Shabbos_Kitchen:_Slicing_and_Dicing_(tochen) The Shabbos Kitchen: Slicing and Dicing (Tochen)] by Rabbi Shalom Rosner# [http://www.tlc.jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_1_Back_to_the_Grind.pdf Back to the Grind] on Jewish Pathways

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-30T02:02:30Z

Gsilver2: /* For Immediate Consumption */

{{Template:Good}}
[[File:Grinding.jpg|thumb]]
Tochen (lit: grinding) is one of the 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. Below are its relevant details and practical applications.

==Definition==

#The melacha is defined as the constructive reduction of a large singular entity into small parts whereby it serves a new purpose.<ref>Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot 7:2 </ref>
##Examples include chopping wood into small chips for a fire, shaving down a metal rod to form small strips, and dicing vegetables to cook them.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 8:15 </ref>
##The prohibition of Tochen ([[grinding]]) includes chopping, grating, crushing, mashing, shredding, or breaking something into small pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 </ref>
#Tochen also applies to non-foods. For example it's forbidden to crush a clod of dirt, shave splinters off a piece of wood, sawing wood with intent for the dust.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 in the note, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>

=== In the Mishkan ===

# Tochen (grinding) was performed in the mishkan in the process of crushing herbs to make dyes.<ref>Rashi Shabbos 73a s.v. HaOfeh. See 39 Melochos (Rabbi Ribiat vol. 2, Zoreiah footnote 7) </ref>

=== Toldot ===
#Cutting up vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them and shaving down a metal rod are examples of toldot of Tochen.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:5, 8:15, 21:18 </ref>

== Chopping Vegetables for a Salad ==
# It is forbidden to cut vegetables into very small pieces.<ref>The gemara shabbat 74b cites Rav Papa as stating that one who is פרים סילקא (lit: chops up beets) into small pieces has violated the melacha of tochen. This is Rashi's girsa in the gemara there. However, according to many rishonim, it is actually not so simple that merely chopping vegetables would be a problem of tochen.

*(1) The Rosh 7:5 cites from Rabbenu Chananel that the correct pshat in the gemara is one who grinds up twigs into sawdust. The Rosh asks how Rashi could think that merely chopping up vegetables would be a violation of tochen. The Korban Netanel 10 explains that the Torah wouldn't have prohibited chopping up vegetables because it's impossible to give a clear guideline as to how small is small, and because this type of chopping doesn't really have a significant effect on the vegetable (in contrast to grinding wheat into flour, which completely changes the character of the wheat into a new entity). Thus, according to the Rosh / R"C, there is never an issue of tochen with chopping vegetables.

*(2) Tosfot (shabbat 74b s.v. high) is seemingly bothered by the Rosh's question on Rashi, and so even though he learns the gemara like Rashi (that the gemara is discussing chopping up beets), he limits it by stating that only beets are included in this prohibition, but not other vegetables. He doesn't explain what makes beets unique that only they would be subject to tochen if chopped up into small pieces. Minchat Chinuch (tochen 2) explains that tosfot means to distinguish between vegetables that can be eaten raw and those that need to be cooked. Beets must be cooked, and so chopping is viewed as the preparatory step towards cooking, and thus a more significant act. In contrast, when one chops up a vegetable that doesn't need to be cooked, this is viewed as just part of the eating process.

*(3) This idea is explicitly stated by the Ritva 74b, that only beets and other vegetables which are not eaten raw would be subject to this prohibition of tochen.

*(4) There are some who suggest that the Rambam agrees to a variation of this idea as well. He writes in a few places that one has violated tochen when they chop up vegetables into small pieces "כדי לבשלו" (lit: in order to cook them). It sounds like he thinks that only if the chopping is a preparatory step in the cooking process is it viewed as a significant act that would be defined as melacha [this is still slightly different than the Ritva; if there is a vegetable that can be eaten raw, but one chops it up in order to cook it, they would still be obligated according to this understanding of the Rambam, even though they would be patur according to the Ritva]. The Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 21:18) understands the Rambam this way. However, many achronim disagree (Aruch Hashulchan 321:4; Minchat Chinuch tochen 2; Biur Hagra 321:15), and think that the Rambam merely mentioned "in order to cook them" just to describe a situation in which one would chop up vegetables into small pieces, but it is not actually a requirement that the chopping be done to prepare for cooking.

*However, other rishonim agree to Rashi that there would be an issue to chop up vegetables, even if one does not intend to cook them, and even if they are edible raw. For example, Tosfot (shabbat 114b s.v. ela) states that chopping up vegetables into pieces that are "דקות מאוד" (lit: very small) violates tochen, but chopping them into big pieces is completely permitted (since this isn't considered similar at all to "grinding"). Similarly, Haga'ot Maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 21 ot 70) cites from the Rashbam that crumbling up bread is not a problem of tochen because the bread has already been ground up once (when first made, the wheat was ground into flour), and so tochen can't be violated a second time. The implication here is that without this argument to be lenient, tochen would have been applicable on bread, even though it is food, edible as it is, and one doesn't intend to cook it further.

*L'halacha, the Shulchan Aruch 321:12 paskens stringently that one who chops up vegetables into pieces that are "דק דק" (lit: very small) has violated the biblical melacha of tochen. As we have seen, many rishonim would disagree with this statement, but of course many would agree, and so the Shulchan Aruch follows the strict approach. However, there is a discussion whether the Rama agrees to this or not. The Rama writes that it is similarly prohibited to chop up figs or carrobs for old people. Why does he specify old people? The Magen Avraham 321:14 suggests that perhaps the Rama understands that it is only prohibited to chop it for old people since they are unable to eat the vegetables otherwise. This type of chopping is significant and thus deemed melacha. However, if someone is able to eat the vegetables even before the chopping, then chopping would be permitted. This is a major leniency. However, it is rejected by the Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 321:12 s.v. lifnei), who suggests that really the Rama just mentioned old people because that was the common case, but it was not meant to exclude other people. Practically then, the halacha is that one may not chop vegetables into very small pieces even for one who is able to eat them otherwise. </ref>
## Some say it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to cut up vegetables into very small pieces even though it is not for immediate consumption (e.g. Friday night after the meal for the purpose of lunch the next day).<ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=128698 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Lech Lecha 5781, min 41-52)] explains that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to chop up vegetables for a salad for lunch far in advance since there are some opinions in the rishonim who would permit it since the vegetables were edible raw. </ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into pieces that are somewhat large, immediately before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:6. This is based on the leniency of the Rashbah (discussed below) that one may perform tochen right before consumption. The Beit Yosef isn't willing to rely upon the Rashbah fully, but he suggests that if one chops up the vegetables a little bit bigger than normal (such that it might not be "דק דק"), then one can rely upon the Rashbah to do so right before the meal. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 paskens this way as well.</ref>
## What is considered somewhat large? As long as the pieces are cut larger than typically cut during the week.<ref>39 Melachos v. 2 p. 460, Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2914 citing Chazon Ish 57 s.v. vheneh, Brit Olam (Tochen 20), Az Nidbaru 11:8, 12:22, Shabbos Kitchen ch. 9 fnt. 19, Rivevot Efraim 5:260:3, Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 91)</ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into large pieces, even far in advance of a meal.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913</ref>
## What is considered large pieces?
### Some say that pieces that are larger than one usually cuts them is considered large. Inversely, some say that anything a cook or housewife would consider 'very small' is considered small.
###Some say that pieces that one still needs to chew and can't swallow whole is considered large.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913-5 cites 3 main approaches:
*Rav Belsky (OU Documents S-34) as holding that the size for tochen is cutting it smaller than one usually cuts. They also quote Rav Elyashiv (Am Mekadshei Sheviyi 1:6:4) and Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 39) who concur.
*Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130) write that cutting it to whatever is considered by people to be very small is a problem of tochen.
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2) holds that as long as one needs to chew on it to eat it it is considered a small piece. Minchat Ish 3:4:4 s.v. vheneh explains that he doesn't mean that if it is big enough that would one need to chew it then it is considered big and it is permitted to cut it to that size, rather he is just coming to say that if it is a little small then it has made the chewing process easier and is considered tochen. 39 Melachos v. 2 p. 458 seems to apply Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's opinion to permit cutting any salad since it will still need to be chewed, however, he concludes that we do not follow that opinion.
*Lastly, they cite Zachor Vshamor (Tochen 2) who says that if the pieces are larger than .5 cm^3 it is certainly not considered very small.</ref>

==For Immediate Consumption==

#Since there are some who hold that it is permitted to cut up raw vegetables or fruit for "immediate" consumption, and there are others who forbid, many poskim write that one should only cut up the vegetables or fruit with a knife into somewhat large pieces for "immediate" consumption.<ref>*The Rashba (Responsa 4:75) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen immediately before consumption just like it is permitted to do [[Borer]] immediately before consumption. The opinion of the Rashba is codified as halacha in the Rama 321:12. The Magen Avraham 321:15, however, quotes the Shiltei Giborim who questions this leniency. Similarly, the Chazon Ish OC 57 seems to prohibit chopping into small pieces even for immediate use in opposition to the Rashba.
*In discussing the Rashba, the Beit Yosef 321 writes that in order to satisfy all opinions one should cut the item into somewhat big pieces and then eat it immediately. The Chaye Adam (Klal 17:2) rules that for immediate consumption one may cut vegetables into somewhat large pieces in accordance with the Beit Yosef. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2) writes that the view of the Chazon Ish 57 that prohibits chopping into small pieces even for immediate use is a lone view and against the common practice. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Ohr Litzion 1:28) is also lenient. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 first writes that since some Rishonim disagree with the Rashba one should follow the compromise of the Beit Yosef to cut it up into somewhat large pieces. Nonetheless, he concludes, that one who cuts it up into very small pieces for immediate consumption has what to rely on. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 agrees.</ref>
##Sephardim hold that for immediate consumption it is permitted to cut up a vegetable even into small pieces. However, it is praiseworthy to be strict to only cut it into big pieces.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
##For a child or someone who can't eat large pieces, there is what to rely upon to cut it up into small pieces, as long as one does so right before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
##The above leniency is only if one uses a regular knife, but not a special dicing utensil.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#How do we define "immediate consumption"?
##The above leniency applies whether one is preparing for one's own immediate consumption or another person's immediate consumption.<ref>Bet Yosef 321 based on the Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 74a s.v. [[Borer]] UMayni'ach) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen for another person's immediate consumption just like it is permitted to do Tochen for one's own immediate consumption. Mishna Brurah 321:43 agrees.</ref>
##It is also considered "immediate" if one makes the salad right before beginning the meal in which it will be eaten.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
##If one made a salad for one meal and there was leftovers, one is allowed to eat it at another meal.<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>

==Cooked Fruits and Vegetables==
#Fruits or vegetables which were cooked to the point that it is very easy to mash may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. It can be mashed on Shabbat even with the prongs of a fork but not a strainer.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:9</ref> Some say that it isn't permitted to mash unless its shape partially was crushed or fell apart because of the cooking.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (English Version p. 73) clearly translates that vegetables cooked before Shabbat need to be already crushed in that they have changed their shape or fallen apart. This is certainly the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (ch. 6 fnt. 22). However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:9 implies that essentially if it is very soft then it is permissible to mash on Shabbat even if it didn't lose its shape. See also 6:10. Orchot Shabbat 5:9 similarly sounds like it is permitted with the same conditions and doesn't require that the shape change or fall apart. The Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2923 cites the Nishmat Shabbat 321:317:4 who is lenient and the Hilchot Shabbat BShabbat (ch. 11 fnt. 41) who is strict.</ref>
#Potatoes or vegetables which were cooked may not be put through a strainer in order to puree it (as the strainer is designated for that purpose) but one is permitted to crush it with a fork (even the prongs) as long as it was cooked to the point that it's easy to crush. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#One shouldn’t use a strainer to puree or cream a cooked fruit or vegetable since the strainer has a designated purpose of being used to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>

==Pre-crushed food==

#Food which was made from crushed particles may be crushed on [[Shabbat]] (not using a utensil designated for crushed but rather a regular knife) if one is going to eat it on [[Shabbat]]. For example, one may crush [[matza]], bread, crackers, chocolate, and sugar. <ref>The Rama 321:12 rules that it is permitted to crush up bread because the flour was already ground up when it was made. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 extends this to breaking up [[matza]], crackers, chocolate, and sugar.</ref>
#Salt granules which solidified because of a moisture may be crushed on [[Shabbat]], however, one may not crush salt crystals (looking like blocks) or any other spice which has never yet been crushed unless one does two Shinui's (changes) by using the handle of the knife or fork on a plate or the table. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 </ref>
#Food which was crushed very well before [[Shabbat]] or on [[Shabbat]] in a permissible may may be further cut on [[Shabbat]] even in the normal fashion. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:12 </ref>
#If someone made farina or rice porridge before Shabbat and now on Shabbat it is dry, one may pour hot water even from a ''Kli Rishon'' onto the farina or rice porridge to dilute it and mix it up. One may even crush the clumps with a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:13 </ref> To make farina as a thin mixture that pours from scratch on Shabbat one should make a change in how the ingredients are put in. If the farina is usually put in first and the water, on Shabbat one should first put in the water first and then the farina and vice versa.<ref>Divarecha Yair 3:14 writes that farina or cream of wheat is usually made as a thin batter food and so it only needs a shinuy in the order of putting in the ingredients.</ref>

==Foods not From the Ground==

#Even though there is an issue of tochen on non-food items as well as food items, foods that do not grow from the ground such as meat, eggs, and cheese are not subject to the prohibition as long as one plans on eating them that Shabbat.<ref>Gemara Shabbos 74b writes that one who grinds firewood into small pieces is chayav for tochen. Rambam Shabbos 7:5 includes metal as a tolada of tochen. The Minchat Chinuch (Musach Hashabbos Tochen 4) concludes based on the Rambam’s example that tochen applies to items which are not gidulei karka, and he adds that this is also the view of the Rashi (74b “Sheva”), who writes that there is a prohibition of tochen for clods of earth. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 321:10) write that both dirt and metal may be considered gidulei karka. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 321:9 based on Terumat Hadeshen 56 writes that one may cut cooked meat into very small pieces. Mishna Brura 321:31 explains that this is because it isn’t gidulei karka and therefore the prohibition doesn’t apply. Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:14 and Yalkut Yosef (Shabbos, vol 3, pg 391) extend this to eggs and cheese. Shoneh Halachot 321:24 quotes the Chazon Ish that one may not be lenient with things that do not grow in the ground unless the intention is to eat them immediately.</ref>
#One may not crush or grind up raw meat on Shabbat since otherwise it isn't edible.<ref>Rama 321:9, Kaf Hachaim 324:29</ref> If it is for immediate consumption it is permitted.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:33, Tiferet 321:47 citing Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 4 p. 270</ref>

==Grinding for a Small Child==

#One can be lenient to cut a food very small for a small child to eat so long as it’s immediately prior to the meal. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Iggeros Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2. </ref>
#It’s forbidden to mash or squash a fruit or vegetable such as a banana or tomato. If one has to mash a banana for a small child one should do it with a variation such as using the handle of a fork or a spoon. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:8 </ref>
#It's forbidden to crush a banana or avocado unless it's already so soft that when one pulls a part of the fruit, that part separates from the rest of the fruit. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:7 </ref>
#There is a debate amongst the poskim if the prohibition of Tochen applies to fruit or vegetables such as bananas and avocados which when mashed do not separate into individual pieces but rather just change shape and remain one large mass. Therefore, it is better to do so with a shinui.<ref>The Tosefta (Beitza 1:19) says that "Pressed or dried figs cannot be crushed before the elderly." The Chazon Ish (57, “nimtzeinu”) writes that when pressed or dried figs are crushed, they remain one mass, and therefore even in such a case tochen is applicable. In light of this, the Chazon Ish writes that it is forbidden to mash a banana even though it remains one mass, even for immediate eating (lishitaso with above about immediate eating). Therefore, he says one must do so with a shinui. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 2) rules that they are not subject to the prohibition of Tochen and may be mashed in the regular manner. He says even if we accept that the prohibition applies even for immediate eating, it is only applicable when one takes one body and turns it into smaller components. However, taking a substance and mashing it while it remains one mass isn’t a problem. He nevertheless concludes that if possible, one should do it with a shinui to be machmir for the Chazon Ish. Rabbi Ribiat (“The 39 Melochos” pg. 461) sides with Rav Moshe. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:27), though he agrees that mashing is included in tochen, permits one to mash a banana with a fork to feed immediately to a child. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Menuchat Ahava 2: pg. 278), writes that he should preferably do so in an unusual manner, such as by using the handle of the fork. Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchita 6:7-8 forbids mashing a banana or avocado unless one uses a shinui. </ref>

==Slicing==

#There is a machloket amongst the poskim if the prohibition applies only if the food is being cut very small in all dimensions or if it even applies if one is slicing in one direction such as an egg or tomato.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 3) writes that slicing foods in one direction isn’t considered tochen because otherwise there would be no limit. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sh”t Minchat Shlomo 91:13) also rules this way. On the other hand, Ketzot HaShulchan Siman 129 Badei HaShulchan 2 quotes that the Tzemach Tzedek was stringent. Additionally, Orchot Shabbos page 217 chapter 5:footnote 12 writes that Rav Elyashiv was stringent as well. </ref>

==Utensils Designed for Grinding==

#Any tool which is designated for crushing or the like such as a mortar or a knife used only for dicing may not be used in any manner even if it doesn't involve any prohibition of Tochen. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:2, Sh”t Rivash 184</ref>
#One should not use an onion slicer (a machine which is made of a set of knifes that surrounds the onion and dices it). <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 [I'm not entirely clear about what an onion slicer is.] </ref>
#A vegetable chopper (with blades fitted with springs on an axis) is forbidden since it chops vegetables thinly. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#An egg slicer (with equally spaced wires that slice the egg when pressed) is permitted. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#A special cheese knife isn’t a utensil designated to be used for chopping finely. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11. See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (6 no. 9) citing R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where he discusses that with a cheese grater there is an issur of uvdin d’chol even if one will eat the grated cheese immediately based on the Rivash 184. However, one can use a knife and even perhaps a special chopping knife if one will eat the food subsequently in the meal since cutting is not exactly like regular tochein, which is closer to grating or mashing. </ref>
#One may cut bread in a machine (manual, non-electric) which cuts slices of bread. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 (note) </ref>
#It’s forbidden to grind coffee beans it a grinder meant for it. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>
#It’s permissible to cut vegetables on a cutting board even if it makes lines in the board. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
#It’s permissible to use a peeler to peel vegetables on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 391) </ref>
#A cucumber or tomato slicer may not be used on Shabbat.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2891 quotes Rav Elyashiv (Zachor Vshamor ch. 1 fnt. 30) that a tomato slicer is a problem of tochen and Dor Hamelaktim compares it to a cucumber slicer.</ref>

==Related Pages==

#[[Medicine on Shabbat|Taking Medicine on Shabbat]] (which is a rabbinic decree because of [[grinding]]) <ref>Gemara 53b and Rashi s.v. Gezeira </ref>

==Links==
# [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718686/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/The_Shabbos_Kitchen:_Slicing_and_Dicing_(tochen) The Shabbos Kitchen: Slicing and Dicing (Tochen)] by Rabbi Shalom Rosner# [http://www.tlc.jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_1_Back_to_the_Grind.pdf Back to the Grind] on Jewish Pathways

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-30T01:24:12Z

Gsilver2: /* Chopping Vegetables for a Salad */

{{Template:Good}}
[[File:Grinding.jpg|thumb]]
Tochen (lit: grinding) is one of the 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. Below are its relevant details and practical applications.

==Definition==

#The melacha is defined as the constructive reduction of a large singular entity into small parts whereby it serves a new purpose.<ref>Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot 7:2 </ref>
##Examples include chopping wood into small chips for a fire, shaving down a metal rod to form small strips, and dicing vegetables to cook them.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 8:15 </ref>
##The prohibition of Tochen ([[grinding]]) includes chopping, grating, crushing, mashing, shredding, or breaking something into small pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 </ref>
#Tochen also applies to non-foods. For example it's forbidden to crush a clod of dirt, shave splinters off a piece of wood, sawing wood with intent for the dust.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 in the note, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>

=== In the Mishkan ===

# Tochen (grinding) was performed in the mishkan in the process of crushing herbs to make dyes.<ref>Rashi Shabbos 73a s.v. HaOfeh. See 39 Melochos (Rabbi Ribiat vol. 2, Zoreiah footnote 7) </ref>

=== Toldot ===
#Cutting up vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them and shaving down a metal rod are examples of toldot of Tochen.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:5, 8:15, 21:18 </ref>

== Chopping Vegetables for a Salad ==
# It is forbidden to cut vegetables into very small pieces.<ref>The gemara shabbat 74b cites Rav Papa as stating that one who is פרים סילקא (lit: chops up beets) into small pieces has violated the melacha of tochen. This is Rashi's girsa in the gemara there. However, according to many rishonim, it is actually not so simple that merely chopping vegetables would be a problem of tochen.

*(1) The Rosh 7:5 cites from Rabbenu Chananel that the correct pshat in the gemara is one who grinds up twigs into sawdust. The Rosh asks how Rashi could think that merely chopping up vegetables would be a violation of tochen. The Korban Netanel 10 explains that the Torah wouldn't have prohibited chopping up vegetables because it's impossible to give a clear guideline as to how small is small, and because this type of chopping doesn't really have a significant effect on the vegetable (in contrast to grinding wheat into flour, which completely changes the character of the wheat into a new entity). Thus, according to the Rosh / R"C, there is never an issue of tochen with chopping vegetables.

*(2) Tosfot (shabbat 74b s.v. high) is seemingly bothered by the Rosh's question on Rashi, and so even though he learns the gemara like Rashi (that the gemara is discussing chopping up beets), he limits it by stating that only beets are included in this prohibition, but not other vegetables. He doesn't explain what makes beets unique that only they would be subject to tochen if chopped up into small pieces. Minchat Chinuch (tochen 2) explains that tosfot means to distinguish between vegetables that can be eaten raw and those that need to be cooked. Beets must be cooked, and so chopping is viewed as the preparatory step towards cooking, and thus a more significant act. In contrast, when one chops up a vegetable that doesn't need to be cooked, this is viewed as just part of the eating process.

*(3) This idea is explicitly stated by the Ritva 74b, that only beets and other vegetables which are not eaten raw would be subject to this prohibition of tochen.

*(4) There are some who suggest that the Rambam agrees to a variation of this idea as well. He writes in a few places that one has violated tochen when they chop up vegetables into small pieces "כדי לבשלו" (lit: in order to cook them). It sounds like he thinks that only if the chopping is a preparatory step in the cooking process is it viewed as a significant act that would be defined as melacha [this is still slightly different than the Ritva; if there is a vegetable that can be eaten raw, but one chops it up in order to cook it, they would still be obligated according to this understanding of the Rambam, even though they would be patur according to the Ritva]. The Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 21:18) understands the Rambam this way. However, many achronim disagree (Aruch Hashulchan 321:4; Minchat Chinuch tochen 2; Biur Hagra 321:15), and think that the Rambam merely mentioned "in order to cook them" just to describe a situation in which one would chop up vegetables into small pieces, but it is not actually a requirement that the chopping be done to prepare for cooking.

*However, other rishonim agree to Rashi that there would be an issue to chop up vegetables, even if one does not intend to cook them, and even if they are edible raw. For example, Tosfot (shabbat 114b s.v. ela) states that chopping up vegetables into pieces that are "דקות מאוד" (lit: very small) violates tochen, but chopping them into big pieces is completely permitted (since this isn't considered similar at all to "grinding"). Similarly, Haga'ot Maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 21 ot 70) cites from the Rashbam that crumbling up bread is not a problem of tochen because the bread has already been ground up once (when first made, the wheat was ground into flour), and so tochen can't be violated a second time. The implication here is that without this argument to be lenient, tochen would have been applicable on bread, even though it is food, edible as it is, and one doesn't intend to cook it further.

*L'halacha, the Shulchan Aruch 321:12 paskens stringently that one who chops up vegetables into pieces that are "דק דק" (lit: very small) has violated the biblical melacha of tochen. As we have seen, many rishonim would disagree with this statement, but of course many would agree, and so the Shulchan Aruch follows the strict approach. However, there is a discussion whether the Rama agrees to this or not. The Rama writes that it is similarly prohibited to chop up figs or carrobs for old people. Why does he specify old people? The Magen Avraham 321:14 suggests that perhaps the Rama understands that it is only prohibited to chop it for old people since they are unable to eat the vegetables otherwise. This type of chopping is significant and thus deemed melacha. However, if someone is able to eat the vegetables even before the chopping, then chopping would be permitted. This is a major leniency. However, it is rejected by the Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 321:12 s.v. lifnei), who suggests that really the Rama just mentioned old people because that was the common case, but it was not meant to exclude other people. Practically then, the halacha is that one may not chop vegetables into very small pieces even for one who is able to eat them otherwise. </ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into pieces that are somewhat large, immediately before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:6. This is based on the leniency of the Rashbah (discussed below) that one may perform tochen right before consumption. The Beit Yosef isn't willing to rely upon the Rashbah fully, but he suggests that if one chops up the vegetables a little bit bigger than normal (such that it might not be "דק דק"), then one can rely upon the Rashbah to do so right before the meal. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 paskens this way as well.</ref>
## What is considered somewhat large? As long as the pieces are cut larger than typically cut during the week.<ref>39 Melachos v. 2 p. 460, Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2914 citing Chazon Ish 57 s.v. vheneh, Brit Olam (Tochen 20), Az Nidbaru 11:8, 12:22, Shabbos Kitchen ch. 9 fnt. 19, Rivevot Efraim 5:260:3, Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 91)</ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into large pieces, even far in advance of a meal.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913</ref>
## What is considered large pieces?
### Some say that pieces that are larger than one usually cuts them is considered large. Inversely, some say that anything a cook or housewife would consider 'very small' is considered small.
###Some say that pieces that one still needs to chew and can't swallow whole is considered large.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913-5 cites 3 main approaches:
*Rav Belsky (OU Documents S-34) as holding that the size for tochen is cutting it smaller than one usually cuts. They also quote Rav Elyashiv (Am Mekadshei Sheviyi 1:6:4) and Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 39) who concur.
*Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130) write that cutting it to whatever is considered by people to be very small is a problem of tochen.
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2) holds that as long as one needs to chew on it to eat it it is considered a small piece. Minchat Ish 3:4:4 s.v. vheneh explains that he doesn't mean that if it is big enough that would one need to chew it then it is considered big and it is permitted to cut it to that size, rather he is just coming to say that if it is a little small then it has made the chewing process easier and is considered tochen. 39 Melachos v. 2 p. 458 seems to apply Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's opinion to permit cutting any salad since it will still need to be chewed, however, he concludes that we do not follow that opinion.
*Lastly, they cite Zachor Vshamor (Tochen 2) who says that if the pieces are larger than .5 cm^3 it is certainly not considered very small.</ref>

==For Immediate Consumption==

#Since there are some who hold that it is permitted to cut up raw vegetables or fruit for "immediate" consumption, and there are others who forbid, many poskim write that one should only cut up the vegetables or fruit with a knife into somewhat large pieces for "immediate" consumption. <ref>*The Rashba (Responsa 4:75) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen immediately before consumption just like it is permitted to do [[Borer]] immediately before consumption. The opinion of the Rashba is codified as halacha in the Rama 321:12. The Magen Avraham 321:15, however, quotes the Shiltei Giborim who questions this leniency. Similarly, the Chazon Ish OC 57 seems to prohibit chopping into small pieces even for immediate use in opposition to the Rashba.
*In discussing the Rashba, the Beit Yosef 321 writes that in order to satisfy all opinions one should cut the item into somewhat big pieces and then eat it immediately. The Chaye Adam (Klal 17:2) rules that for immediate consumption one may cut vegetables into somewhat large pieces in accordance with the Beit Yosef. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2) writes that the view of the Chazon Ish 57 that prohibits chopping into small pieces even for immediate use is a lone view and against the common practice. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Ohr Litzion 1:28) is also lenient. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 first writes that since some Rishonim disagree with the Rashba one should follow the compromise of the Beit Yosef to cut it up into somewhat large pieces. Nonetheless, he concludes, that one who cuts it up into very small pieces for immediate consumption has what to rely on. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 agrees.
*It is noteworthy that the Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 clarify that this is a case where is using a regular knife (and not a dicing utensil).</ref> Sephardim hold that for immediate consumption it is permitted to cut up a vegetable even into small pieces. However, it is praiseworthy to be strict to only cut it into big pieces. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref> The above leniency is only if one uses a regular knife but not a special grinding utensil. <ref>Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#It is also considered "immediate" if one makes the salad right before beginning the meal in which it will be eaten. <ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
#The above leniency applies whether one is preparing for one's own immediate consumption or another person's immediate consumption.<ref>Bet Yosef 321 based on the Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 74a s.v. [[Borer]] UMayni'ach) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen for another person's immediate consumption just like it is permitted to do Tochen for one's own immediate consumption. Mishna Brurah 321:43 agrees.</ref>
#If one made a salad for one meal and there was left over one is allowed to eat it in another meal. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
#For a child or someone who can't eat large pieces there is what to rely on to cut it up into small pieces as long as one does so right before the meal. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#It's forbidden to crush a banana or avocado unless it's already so soft that when one pulls a part of the fruit, that part separates from the rest of the fruit. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:7 </ref>
#There is a debate amongst the Poskim if the prohibition of Tochen applies to fruit or vegetables such as bananas and avocados which when mashed do not separate into individual pieces but rather just change shape and remain one large mass. Therefore, it is better to do so with a shinui.<ref>The Tosefta (Beitza 1:19) says that "Pressed or dried figs cannot be crushed before the elderly." The Chazon Ish (57, “nimtzeinu”) writes that when pressed or dried figs are crushed, they remain one mass, and therefore even in such a case tochen is applicable. In light of this, the Chazon Ish writes that it is forbidden to mash a banana even though it remains one mass, even for immediate eating (lishitaso with above about immediate eating). Therefore, he says one must do so with a shinui. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 2) rules that they are not subject to the prohibition of Tochen and may be mashed in the regular manner. He says even if we accept that the prohibition applies even for immediate eating, it is only applicable when one takes one body and turns it into smaller components. However, taking a substance and mashing it while it remains one mass isn’t a problem. He nevertheless concludes that if possible, one should do it with a shinui to be machmir for the Chazon Ish. Rabbi Ribiat (“The 39 Melochos” pg. 461) sides with Rav Moshe. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:27), though he agrees that mashing is included in tochen, permits one to mash a banana with a fork to feed immediately to a child. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Menuchat Ahava 2: pg. 278), writes that he should preferably do so in an unusual manner, such as by using the handle of the fork. Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchita 6:7-8 forbids mashing a banana or avocado unless one uses a shinui. </ref>
# Some say it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to cut up vegetables Friday night after the meal or Shabbat morning for lunch even though it isn't for immediate consumption.<ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=128698 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Lech Lecha 5781, min 41-52)] explains that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to chop up vegetables for a salad for lunch far in advance since there are some opinions in the rishonim who would permit it since the vegetables were edible raw. </ref>

==Cooked Fruits and Vegetables==
#Fruits or vegetables which were cooked to the point that it is very easy to mash may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. It can be mashed on Shabbat even with the prongs of a fork but not a strainer.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:9</ref> Some say that it isn't permitted to mash unless its shape partially was crushed or fell apart because of the cooking.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (English Version p. 73) clearly translates that vegetables cooked before Shabbat need to be already crushed in that they have changed their shape or fallen apart. This is certainly the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (ch. 6 fnt. 22). However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:9 implies that essentially if it is very soft then it is permissible to mash on Shabbat even if it didn't lose its shape. See also 6:10. Orchot Shabbat 5:9 similarly sounds like it is permitted with the same conditions and doesn't require that the shape change or fall apart. The Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2923 cites the Nishmat Shabbat 321:317:4 who is lenient and the Hilchot Shabbat BShabbat (ch. 11 fnt. 41) who is strict.</ref>
#Potatoes or vegetables which were cooked may not be put through a strainer in order to puree it (as the strainer is designated for that purpose) but one is permitted to crush it with a fork (even the prongs) as long as it was cooked to the point that it's easy to crush. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#One shouldn’t use a strainer to puree or cream a cooked fruit or vegetable since the strainer has a designated purpose of being used to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>

==Pre-crushed food==

#Food which was made from crushed particles may be crushed on [[Shabbat]] (not using a utensil designated for crushed but rather a regular knife) if one is going to eat it on [[Shabbat]]. For example, one may crush [[matza]], bread, crackers, chocolate, and sugar. <ref>The Rama 321:12 rules that it is permitted to crush up bread because the flour was already ground up when it was made. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 extends this to breaking up [[matza]], crackers, chocolate, and sugar.</ref>
#Salt granules which solidified because of a moisture may be crushed on [[Shabbat]], however, one may not crush salt crystals (looking like blocks) or any other spice which has never yet been crushed unless one does two Shinui's (changes) by using the handle of the knife or fork on a plate or the table. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 </ref>
#Food which was crushed very well before [[Shabbat]] or on [[Shabbat]] in a permissible may may be further cut on [[Shabbat]] even in the normal fashion. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:12 </ref>
#If someone made farina or rice porridge before Shabbat and now on Shabbat it is dry, one may pour hot water even from a ''Kli Rishon'' onto the farina or rice porridge to dilute it and mix it up. One may even crush the clumps with a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:13 </ref> To make farina as a thin mixture that pours from scratch on Shabbat one should make a change in how the ingredients are put in. If the farina is usually put in first and the water, on Shabbat one should first put in the water first and then the farina and vice versa.<ref>Divarecha Yair 3:14 writes that farina or cream of wheat is usually made as a thin batter food and so it only needs a shinuy in the order of putting in the ingredients.</ref>

==Foods not From the Ground==

#Even though there is an issue of tochen on non-food items as well as food items, foods that do not grow from the ground such as meat, eggs, and cheese are not subject to the prohibition as long as one plans on eating them that Shabbat.<ref>Gemara Shabbos 74b writes that one who grinds firewood into small pieces is chayav for tochen. Rambam Shabbos 7:5 includes metal as a tolada of tochen. The Minchat Chinuch (Musach Hashabbos Tochen 4) concludes based on the Rambam’s example that tochen applies to items which are not gidulei karka, and he adds that this is also the view of the Rashi (74b “Sheva”), who writes that there is a prohibition of tochen for clods of earth. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 321:10) write that both dirt and metal may be considered gidulei karka. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 321:9 based on Terumat Hadeshen 56 writes that one may cut cooked meat into very small pieces. Mishna Brura 321:31 explains that this is because it isn’t gidulei karka and therefore the prohibition doesn’t apply. Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:14 and Yalkut Yosef (Shabbos, vol 3, pg 391) extend this to eggs and cheese. Shoneh Halachot 321:24 quotes the Chazon Ish that one may not be lenient with things that do not grow in the ground unless the intention is to eat them immediately.</ref>
#One may not crush or grind up raw meat on Shabbat since otherwise it isn't edible.<ref>Rama 321:9, Kaf Hachaim 324:29</ref> If it is for immediate consumption it is permitted.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:33, Tiferet 321:47 citing Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 4 p. 270</ref>

==Grinding for a Small Child==

#One can be lenient to cut a food very small for a small child to eat so long as it’s immediately prior to the meal. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Iggeros Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2. </ref>
#It’s forbidden to mash or squash a fruit or vegetable such as a banana or tomato. If one has to mash a banana for a small child one should do it with a variation such as using the handle of a fork or a spoon. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:8 </ref>

==Slicing==

#There is a machloket amongst the poskim if the prohibition applies only if the food is being cut very small in all dimensions or if it even applies if one is slicing in one direction such as an egg or tomato.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 3) writes that slicing foods in one direction isn’t considered tochen because otherwise there would be no limit. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sh”t Minchat Shlomo 91:13) also rules this way. On the other hand, Ketzot HaShulchan Siman 129 Badei HaShulchan 2 quotes that the Tzemach Tzedek was stringent. Additionally, Orchot Shabbos page 217 chapter 5:footnote 12 writes that Rav Elyashiv was stringent as well. </ref>

==Utensils Designed for Grinding==

#Any tool which is designated for crushing or the like such as a mortar or a knife used only for dicing may not be used in any manner even if it doesn't involve any prohibition of Tochen. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:2, Sh”t Rivash 184</ref>
#One should not use an onion slicer (a machine which is made of a set of knifes that surrounds the onion and dices it). <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 [I'm not entirely clear about what an onion slicer is.] </ref>
#A vegetable chopper (with blades fitted with springs on an axis) is forbidden since it chops vegetables thinly. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#An egg slicer (with equally spaced wires that slice the egg when pressed) is permitted. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#A special cheese knife isn’t a utensil designated to be used for chopping finely. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11. See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (6 no. 9) citing R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where he discusses that with a cheese grater there is an issur of uvdin d’chol even if one will eat the grated cheese immediately based on the Rivash 184. However, one can use a knife and even perhaps a special chopping knife if one will eat the food subsequently in the meal since cutting is not exactly like regular tochein, which is closer to grating or mashing. </ref>
#One may cut bread in a machine (manual, non-electric) which cuts slices of bread. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 (note) </ref>
#It’s forbidden to grind coffee beans it a grinder meant for it. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>
#It’s permissible to cut vegetables on a cutting board even if it makes lines in the board. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
#It’s permissible to use a peeler to peel vegetables on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 391) </ref>
#A cucumber or tomato slicer may not be used on Shabbat.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2891 quotes Rav Elyashiv (Zachor Vshamor ch. 1 fnt. 30) that a tomato slicer is a problem of tochen and Dor Hamelaktim compares it to a cucumber slicer.</ref>

==Related Pages==

#[[Medicine on Shabbat|Taking Medicine on Shabbat]] (which is a rabbinic decree because of [[grinding]]) <ref>Gemara 53b and Rashi s.v. Gezeira </ref>

==Links==
# [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718686/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/The_Shabbos_Kitchen:_Slicing_and_Dicing_(tochen) The Shabbos Kitchen: Slicing and Dicing (Tochen)] by Rabbi Shalom Rosner# [http://www.tlc.jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_1_Back_to_the_Grind.pdf Back to the Grind] on Jewish Pathways

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-30T01:19:32Z

Gsilver2: /* In the Mishkan */

{{Template:Good}}
[[File:Grinding.jpg|thumb]]
Tochen (lit: grinding) is one of the 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. Below are its relevant details and practical applications.

==Definition==

#The melacha is defined as the constructive reduction of a large singular entity into small parts whereby it serves a new purpose.<ref>Rambam Peirush HaMishnayot 7:2 </ref>
##Examples include chopping wood into small chips for a fire, shaving down a metal rod to form small strips, and dicing vegetables to cook them.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 8:15 </ref>
##The prohibition of Tochen ([[grinding]]) includes chopping, grating, crushing, mashing, shredding, or breaking something into small pieces.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 </ref>
#Tochen also applies to non-foods. For example it's forbidden to crush a clod of dirt, shave splinters off a piece of wood, sawing wood with intent for the dust.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:1 in the note, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>

=== In the Mishkan ===

# Tochen (grinding) was performed in the mishkan in the process of crushing herbs to make dyes.<ref>Rashi Shabbos 73a s.v. HaOfeh. See 39 Melochos (Rabbi Ribiat vol. 2, Zoreiah footnote 7) </ref>

=== Toldot ===
#Cutting up vegetables into small pieces in order to cook them and shaving down a metal rod are examples of toldot of Tochen.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:5, 8:15, 21:18 </ref>

== Chopping Vegetables for a Salad ==
# It is forbidden to cut vegetables into very small pieces.<ref>The gemara shabbat 74b cites Rav Papa as stating that one who is פרים סילקא (lit: chops up beets) into small pieces has violated the melacha of tochen. This is Rashi's girsa in the gemara there. However, according to many rishonim, it is actually not so simple that merely chopping vegetables would be a problem of tochen.

*(1) The Rosh 7:5 cites from Rabbenu Chananel that the correct pshat in the gemara is one who grinds up twigs into sawdust. The Rosh asks how Rashi could think that merely chopping up vegetables would be a violation of tochen. The Korban Netanel 10 explains that the Torah wouldn't have prohibited chopping up vegetables because it's impossible to give a clear guideline as to how small is small, and because this type of chopping doesn't really have a significant effect on the vegetable (in contrast to grinding wheat into flour, which completely changes the character of the wheat into a new entity). Thus, according to the Rosh / R"C, there is never an issue of tochen with chopping vegetables.

*(2) Tosfot (shabbat 74b s.v. high) is seemingly bothered by the Rosh's question on Rashi, and so even though he learns the gemara like Rashi (that the gemara is discussing chopping up beets), he limits it by stating that only beets are included in this prohibition, but not other vegetables. He doesn't explain what makes beets unique that only they would be subject to tochen if chopped up into small pieces. Minchat Chinuch (tochen 2) explains that tosfot means to distinguish between vegetables that can be eaten raw and those that need to be cooked. Beets must be cooked, and so chopping is viewed as the preparatory step towards cooking, and thus a more significant act. In contrast, when one chops up a vegetable that doesn't need to be cooked, this is viewed as just part of the eating process.

*(3) This idea is explicitly stated by the Ritva 74b, that only beets and other vegetables which are not eaten raw would be subject to this prohibition of tochen.

*(4) There are some who suggest that the Rambam agrees to a variation of this idea as well. He writes in a few places that one has violated tochen when they chop up vegetables into small pieces "כדי לבשלו" (lit: in order to cook them). It sounds like he thinks that only if the chopping is a preparatory step in the cooking process is it viewed as a significant act that would be defined as melacha [this is still slightly different than the Ritva; if there is a vegetable that can be eaten raw, but one chops it up in order to cook it, they would still be obligated according to this understanding of the Rambam, even though they would be patur according to the Ritva]. The Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 21:18) understands the Rambam this way. However, many achronim disagree (Aruch Hashulchan 321:4; Minchat Chinuch tochen 2; Biur Hagra 321:15), and think that the Rambam merely mentioned "in order to cook them" just to describe a situation in which one would chop up vegetables into small pieces, but it is not actually a requirement that the chopping be done to prepare for cooking.

*However, other rishonim agree to Rashi that there would be an issue to chop up vegetables, even if one does not intend to cook them, and even if they are edible raw. For example, Tosfot (shabbat 114b s.v. ela) states that chopping up vegetables into pieces that are "דקות מאוד" (lit: very small) violates tochen, but chopping them into big pieces is completely permitted (since this isn't considered similar at all to "grinding"). Similarly, Haga'ot Maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 21 ot 70) cites from the Rashbam that crumbling up bread is not a problem of tochen because the bread has already been ground up once (when first made, the wheat was ground into flour), and so tochen can't be violated a second time. The implication here is that without this argument to be lenient, tochen would have been applicable on bread, even though it is food, edible as it is, and one doesn't intend to cook it further.

*L'halacha, the Shulchan Aruch 321:12 paskens stringently that one who chops up vegetables into pieces that are "דק דק" (lit: very small) has violated the biblical melacha of tochen. As we have seen, many rishonim would disagree with this statement, but of course many would agree, and so the Shulchan Aruch follows the strict approach. However, there is a discussion whether the Rama agrees to this or not. The Rama writes that it is similarly prohibited to chop up figs or carrobs for old people. Why does he specify old people? The Magen Avraham 321:14 suggests that perhaps the Rama understands that it is only prohibited to chop it for old people since they are unable to eat the vegetables otherwise. This type of chopping is significant and thus deemed melacha. However, if someone is able to eat the vegetables even before the chopping, then chopping would be permitted. This is a major leniency. However, it is rejected by the Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 321:12 s.v. lifnei), who suggests that really the Rama just mentioned old people because that was the common case, but it was not meant to exclude other people. Practically then, the halacha is that one may not chop vegetables into very small pieces even for one who is able to eat them otherwise. </ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into pieces that are somewhat large, immediately before the meal.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:6</ref>
## What is considered somewhat large? As long as the pieces are cut larger than typically cut during the week.<ref>39 Melachos v. 2 p. 460, Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2914 citing Chazon Ish 57 s.v. vheneh, Brit Olam (Tochen 20), Az Nidbaru 11:8, 12:22, Shabbos Kitchen ch. 9 fnt. 19, Rivevot Efraim 5:260:3, Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 91)</ref>
# It is permitted to cut vegetables into large pieces even far in advance of a meal.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913</ref>
## What is considered large pieces?
### Some say that pieces that are larger than one usually cuts them is considered large. Inversely, some say that anything a cook or housewife would consider 'very small' is considered small.
###Some say that pieces that one still needs to chew and can't swallow whole is considered large.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2913-5 cites 3 main approaches:
*Rav Belsky (OU Documents S-34) as holding that the size for tochen is cutting it smaller than one usually cuts. They also quote Rav Elyashiv (Am Mekadshei Sheviyi 1:6:4) and Hilchos Shabbos (Rav Eider fnt. 39) who concur.
*Yashiv Moshe (Nishmat Shabbat 315:2) and the Shabbos Kitchen (p. 130) write that cutting it to whatever is considered by people to be very small is a problem of tochen.
*Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 6 fnt. 6, Minchat Shlomo 1:91:13, Shulchan Shlomo 321:13:2) holds that as long as one needs to chew on it to eat it it is considered a small piece. Minchat Ish 3:4:4 s.v. vheneh explains that he doesn't mean that if it is big enough that would one need to chew it then it is considered big and it is permitted to cut it to that size, rather he is just coming to say that if it is a little small then it has made the chewing process easier and is considered tochen. 39 Melachos v. 2 p. 458 seems to apply Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's opinion to permit cutting any salad since it will still need to be chewed, however, he concludes that we do not follow that opinion.
*Lastly, they cite Zachor Vshamor (Tochen 2) who says that if the pieces are larger than .5 cm^3 it is certainly not considered very small.</ref>

==Utensils designed for grinding==

#Any tool which is designated for crushing or the like such as a mortar or a knife used only for dicing may not be used in any manner even if it doesn't involve any prohibition of Tochen. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:2, Sh”t Rivash 184</ref>
#One should not use an onion slicer (a machine which is made of a set of knifes that surrounds the onion and dices it). <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 [I'm not entirely clear about what an onion slicer is.] </ref>
#A vegetable chopper (with blades fitted with springs on an axis) is forbidden since it chops vegetables thinly. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#An egg slicer (with equally spaced wires that slice the egg when pressed) is permitted. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:3 </ref>
#A special cheese knife isn’t a utensil designated to be used for chopping finely. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11. See Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (6 no. 9) citing R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where he discusses that with a cheese grater there is an issur of uvdin d’chol even if one will eat the grated cheese immediately based on the Rivash 184. However, one can use a knife and even perhaps a special chopping knife if one will eat the food subsequently in the meal since cutting is not exactly like regular tochein, which is closer to grating or mashing. </ref>
#One may cut bread in a machine (manual, non-electric) which cuts slices of bread. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 (note) </ref>
#It’s forbidden to grind coffee beans it a grinder meant for it. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 377) </ref>
#It’s permissible to cut vegetables on a cutting board even if it makes lines in the board. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
#It’s permissible to use a peeler to peel vegetables on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 391) </ref>
#A cucumber or tomato slicer may not be used on Shabbat.<ref>Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2891 quotes Rav Elyashiv (Zachor Vshamor ch. 1 fnt. 30) that a tomato slicer is a problem of tochen and Dor Hamelaktim compares it to a cucumber slicer.</ref>

==For immediate consumption==

#Since there are some who hold that it is permitted to cut up raw vegetables or fruit for "immediate" consumption, and there are others who forbid, many poskim write that one should only cut up the vegetables or fruit with a knife into somewhat large pieces for "immediate" consumption. <ref>*The Rashba (Responsa 4:75) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen immediately before consumption just like it is permitted to do [[Borer]] immediately before consumption. The opinion of the Rashba is codified as halacha in the Rama 321:12. The Magen Avraham 321:15, however, quotes the Shiltei Giborim who questions this leniency. Similarly, the Chazon Ish OC 57 seems to prohibit chopping into small pieces even for immediate use in opposition to the Rashba.
*In discussing the Rashba, the Beit Yosef 321 writes that in order to satisfy all opinions one should cut the item into somewhat big pieces and then eat it immediately. The Chaye Adam (Klal 17:2) rules that for immediate consumption one may cut vegetables into somewhat large pieces in accordance with the Beit Yosef. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2) writes that the view of the Chazon Ish 57 that prohibits chopping into small pieces even for immediate use is a lone view and against the common practice. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Ohr Litzion 1:28) is also lenient. The Mishna Brurah 321:45 first writes that since some Rishonim disagree with the Rashba one should follow the compromise of the Beit Yosef to cut it up into somewhat large pieces. Nonetheless, he concludes, that one who cuts it up into very small pieces for immediate consumption has what to rely on. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 agrees.
*It is noteworthy that the Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 clarify that this is a case where is using a regular knife (and not a dicing utensil).</ref> Sephardim hold that for immediate consumption it is permitted to cut up a vegetable even into small pieces. However, it is praiseworthy to be strict to only cut it into big pieces. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref> The above leniency is only if one uses a regular knife but not a special grinding utensil. <ref>Mishna Brurah 321:44 and Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#It is also considered "immediate" if one makes the salad right before beginning the meal in which it will be eaten. <ref>Mishna Brurah 321:45, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 382) </ref>
#The above leniency applies whether one is preparing for one's own immediate consumption or another person's immediate consumption.<ref>Bet Yosef 321 based on the Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 74a s.v. [[Borer]] UMayni'ach) writes that it is permitted to do Tochen for another person's immediate consumption just like it is permitted to do Tochen for one's own immediate consumption. Mishna Brurah 321:43 agrees.</ref>
#If one made a salad for one meal and there was left over one is allowed to eat it in another meal. <ref>Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 3, pg 389) </ref>
#For a child or someone who can't eat large pieces there is what to rely on to cut it up into small pieces as long as one does so right before the meal. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6 </ref>
#It's forbidden to crush a banana or avocado unless it's already so soft that when one pulls a part of the fruit, that part separates from the rest of the fruit. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:7 </ref>
#There is a debate amongst the Poskim if the prohibition of Tochen applies to fruit or vegetables such as bananas and avocados which when mashed do not separate into individual pieces but rather just change shape and remain one large mass. Therefore, it is better to do so with a shinui.<ref>The Tosefta (Beitza 1:19) says that "Pressed or dried figs cannot be crushed before the elderly." The Chazon Ish (57, “nimtzeinu”) writes that when pressed or dried figs are crushed, they remain one mass, and therefore even in such a case tochen is applicable. In light of this, the Chazon Ish writes that it is forbidden to mash a banana even though it remains one mass, even for immediate eating (lishitaso with above about immediate eating). Therefore, he says one must do so with a shinui. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 2) rules that they are not subject to the prohibition of Tochen and may be mashed in the regular manner. He says even if we accept that the prohibition applies even for immediate eating, it is only applicable when one takes one body and turns it into smaller components. However, taking a substance and mashing it while it remains one mass isn’t a problem. He nevertheless concludes that if possible, one should do it with a shinui to be machmir for the Chazon Ish. Rabbi Ribiat (“The 39 Melochos” pg. 461) sides with Rav Moshe. Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:27), though he agrees that mashing is included in tochen, permits one to mash a banana with a fork to feed immediately to a child. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Menuchat Ahava 2: pg. 278), writes that he should preferably do so in an unusual manner, such as by using the handle of the fork. Shemirat Shabbos Kehilchita 6:7-8 forbids mashing a banana or avocado unless one uses a shinui. </ref>
# Some say it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to cut up vegetables Friday night after the meal or Shabbat morning for lunch even though it isn't for immediate consumption.<ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=128698 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Lech Lecha 5781, min 41-52)] explains that it is permitted to ask a non-Jew to chop up vegetables for a salad for lunch far in advance since there are some opinions in the rishonim who would permit it since the vegetables were edible raw. </ref>

==Cooked Fruits and Vegetables==
#Fruits or vegetables which were cooked to the point that it is very easy to mash may be crushed on [[Shabbat]]. It can be mashed on Shabbat even with the prongs of a fork but not a strainer.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:9</ref> Some say that it isn't permitted to mash unless its shape partially was crushed or fell apart because of the cooking.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (English Version p. 73) clearly translates that vegetables cooked before Shabbat need to be already crushed in that they have changed their shape or fallen apart. This is certainly the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (ch. 6 fnt. 22). However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 6:9 implies that essentially if it is very soft then it is permissible to mash on Shabbat even if it didn't lose its shape. See also 6:10. Orchot Shabbat 5:9 similarly sounds like it is permitted with the same conditions and doesn't require that the shape change or fall apart. The Dor Hamelaktim v. 5 p. 2923 cites the Nishmat Shabbat 321:317:4 who is lenient and the Hilchot Shabbat BShabbat (ch. 11 fnt. 41) who is strict.</ref>
#Potatoes or vegetables which were cooked may not be put through a strainer in order to puree it (as the strainer is designated for that purpose) but one is permitted to crush it with a fork (even the prongs) as long as it was cooked to the point that it's easy to crush. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>
#One shouldn’t use a strainer to puree or cream a cooked fruit or vegetable since the strainer has a designated purpose of being used to mash.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:10 </ref>

==Pre-crushed food==

#Food which was made from crushed particles may be crushed on [[Shabbat]] (not using a utensil designated for crushed but rather a regular knife) if one is going to eat it on [[Shabbat]]. For example, one may crush [[matza]], bread, crackers, chocolate, and sugar. <ref>The Rama 321:12 rules that it is permitted to crush up bread because the flour was already ground up when it was made. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 extends this to breaking up [[matza]], crackers, chocolate, and sugar.</ref>
#Salt granules which solidified because of a moisture may be crushed on [[Shabbat]], however, one may not crush salt crystals (looking like blocks) or any other spice which has never yet been crushed unless one does two Shinui's (changes) by using the handle of the knife or fork on a plate or the table. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:11 </ref>
#Food which was crushed very well before [[Shabbat]] or on [[Shabbat]] in a permissible may may be further cut on [[Shabbat]] even in the normal fashion. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:12 </ref>
#If someone made farina or rice porridge before Shabbat and now on Shabbat it is dry, one may pour hot water even from a ''Kli Rishon'' onto the farina or rice porridge to dilute it and mix it up. One may even crush the clumps with a spoon.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:13 </ref> To make farina as a thin mixture that pours from scratch on Shabbat one should make a change in how the ingredients are put in. If the farina is usually put in first and the water, on Shabbat one should first put in the water first and then the farina and vice versa.<ref>Divarecha Yair 3:14 writes that farina or cream of wheat is usually made as a thin batter food and so it only needs a shinuy in the order of putting in the ingredients.</ref>

==Foods which don't grow from the ground==

#Even though there is an issue of tochen on non-food items as well as food items, foods that do not grow from the ground such as meat, eggs, and cheese are not subject to the prohibition as long as one plans on eating them that Shabbat.<ref>Gemara Shabbos 74b writes that one who grinds firewood into small pieces is chayav for tochen. Rambam Shabbos 7:5 includes metal as a tolada of tochen. The Minchat Chinuch (Musach Hashabbos Tochen 4) concludes based on the Rambam’s example that tochen applies to items which are not gidulei karka, and he adds that this is also the view of the Rashi (74b “Sheva”), who writes that there is a prohibition of tochen for clods of earth. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 321:10) write that both dirt and metal may be considered gidulei karka. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 321:9 based on Terumat Hadeshen 56 writes that one may cut cooked meat into very small pieces. Mishna Brura 321:31 explains that this is because it isn’t gidulei karka and therefore the prohibition doesn’t apply. Shemirat Shabbos KeHilchata 6:14 and Yalkut Yosef (Shabbos, vol 3, pg 391) extend this to eggs and cheese. Shoneh Halachot 321:24 quotes the Chazon Ish that one may not be lenient with things that do not grow in the ground unless the intention is to eat them immediately.</ref>
#One may not crush or grind up raw meat on Shabbat since otherwise it isn't edible.<ref>Rama 321:9, Kaf Hachaim 324:29</ref> If it is for immediate consumption it is permitted.<ref>Mishna Brurah 321:33, Tiferet 321:47 citing Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 4 p. 270</ref>

==Grinding for a small child==

#One can be lenient to cut a food very small for a small child to eat so long as it’s immediately prior to the meal. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:6, Iggeros Moshe OC 4:74, Tochen 2. </ref>
#It’s forbidden to mash or squash a fruit or vegetable such as a banana or tomato. If one has to mash a banana for a small child one should do it with a variation such as using the handle of a fork or a spoon. <ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 6:8 </ref>

==Slicing==

#There is a machloket amongst the poskim if the prohibition applies only if the food is being cut very small in all dimensions or if it even applies if one is slicing in one direction such as an egg or tomato.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe OC 4:74:Tochen 3) writes that slicing foods in one direction isn’t considered tochen because otherwise there would be no limit. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Sh”t Minchat Shlomo 91:13) also rules this way. On the other hand, Ketzot HaShulchan Siman 129 Badei HaShulchan 2 quotes that the Tzemach Tzedek was stringent. Additionally, Orchot Shabbos page 217 chapter 5:footnote 12 writes that Rav Elyashiv was stringent as well. </ref>

==Related Pages==

#[[Medicine on Shabbat|Taking Medicine on Shabbat]] (which is a rabbinic decree because of [[grinding]]) <ref>Gemara 53b and Rashi s.v. Gezeira </ref>

==Links==
# [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718686/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/The_Shabbos_Kitchen:_Slicing_and_Dicing_(tochen) The Shabbos Kitchen: Slicing and Dicing (Tochen)] by Rabbi Shalom Rosner# [http://www.tlc.jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_1_Back_to_the_Grind.pdf Back to the Grind] on Jewish Pathways

==Sources==
<references />
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tochen

2024-07-29T02:41:45Z

Gsilver2:

Tzad

2024-07-29T01:48:24Z

Gsilver2: /* Domesticated Animals / Pets */

{{Okay}}
[[File:Tzad.png|thumb]]
Trapping a living creature is one of the prohibited 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. The details of this melacha (e.g. how to define "trapped", how it applies to domesticated animals, which species of animals are included, etc.) are discussed below.

==Definition==
# In the mishkan, they would trap rams to use their skins for the curtains, and they would trap the chilazon for the dye known as techeilet.<ref> See Rashi 73a s.v. Hatzad es hatzvi. See also gemara 75a </ref>
# Tzad is the melacha of containing a living creature in order to use it (or part of it).<ref> Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel on 106a (See also Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:19) indicate that the paradigmatic way to trap an animal is to chase it into a house or some other sufficiently small place and close the door so that the animal can’t escape.</ref>
## One has also violated the melacha for simply locking the door when the animal is already inside.<ref> Mishna 106b, Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:23 </ref>
# Tzad doesn’t appear to have any toldot.<ref> Some meforshim try to explain how some ways of trapping, done differently than how it was done in the mishkan, are indeed only toldot. See Avnei Nezer O”C Siman 195 </ref>

=== Setting a Trap on Shabbat ===
# Interestingly enough, if one actually sets a trap on shabbat, one may not necessarily be violating tzad.
## Some poskim say that one is obligated for setting a trap that will definitely catch something on Shabbat.<ref> Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 316:9) based on Tosfot (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin). Even though the actual trapping only takes place at a later point in time (once one is no longer taking any direct action), nonetheless one is considered to have violated tzad since they did an action on shabbat which would certainly result in trapping. Presumably, the Pri Megadim understands that the time delay does not constitute "grama". </ref>
## Others say that one is only obligated if the animal is already entering the trap as he sets it.<ref> Mishna Brurah 316:18 from Magen Avraham, based on Tosfos 17b. Presumably they understand that the time delay makes this a case of grama, and so not biblically prohibited. See Tosfot Harosh (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin) who states explicitly that one is exempt if one sets a trap on shabbat and it catches an animal at a later point in time, "דאינו צד בידיים" (one isn't directly involved at the time of the trapping). For more details, see ''Toras Hamelochos'' vol. 5 p. 21-33 </ref>
### Sephardim hold that it is permitted to put out a mouse trap on Shabbat since it is only grama.<ref>Chazon Ovadia v. 5 p. 118</ref>
### Ashkenazim are strict.<ref>Mishna Brurah 316:18</ref>

=== Unique Nature of Tzad ===
# There are a few unique features of tzad:
## It doesn't affect a change in the object upon which the melacha is being performed (i.e. the animal). This is in contrast to most other melachot, which do affect a change in the object upon which the melacha is performed.<ref> Avnei Nezer O”C 189:7 </ref>
## It can perhaps be violated even without doing an action at the time that the melacha takes place (see above discussion regarding setting a trap on shabbat).
# What exactly is the definition of tzad?
## The achronim take different approaches to this question:
### Some define the melacha as bringing the animal from a state of being "free" to a state of being "trapped".
### Others define the melacha as the action of trapping itself, in contrast to other melachot which are result-oriented.<ref> Shiurei Rav Shimon Shkop Kesubos 4:2. The idea here is that most melachot affect the object upon which the melacha is performed. If I plow, there are now holes in the ground. If I write, there are now letters on the page. Thus, those melachot are result-oriented. The prohibition is to bring about a particular result. However, trapping has no such affect. The animal looks exactly the same before and after the trapping (it's just in a more enclosed space). Thus, it is reasonable to say that perhaps the prohibition is not defined as bringing the animal to a state of being trapped (since really this isn't a different cheftza), but rather as the act of trapping itself. </ref>
#### This approach helps explain why one’s mindset matters more by tzad than it does by other melachot.<ref> See for some examples Rashba 107a based on Yerushalmi and Magid Mishna Shabbos 10:17 </ref>
===How Enclosed is Considered "Trapped"?===
# The biblical violation of [[trapping]] is only violated when one encloses the animal in a space small enough that a person could catch it in one "שחייא" (lit: lunge).<ref> The Mishna shabbat 106b states that if one traps an animal into a pen which is still "מחוסר צידה" (lit: missing trapping), then it is only rabbinically forbidden. In other words, one has only violated the melacha of trapping if they have enclosed the animal in a space small enough such that it can be easily grasped without needing to "trap" it again. How small is this space? The gemara 106b cites rav ashi as holding that if you are able to grasp the animal in one "שחיא" then this is considered biblically trapped.</ref> There is a debate as to what exactly this means:
## Some poskim hold that you have to be able to grasp the animal in one lunge.<ref>Ritva shabbat 106b s.v. kol heicha. The Ritva didn't have in his girsa of the gemara the phrase "דרהיט בתריה" (lit: to run after it), and so this perhaps leads him to his interpretation.</ref>
## Most poskim argue that you just have to be able to grasp the animal in one sprinting session (without stopping for a breather).<ref>Rashbah beitzah 24a, as well as Maggid Mishna hilchot shabbat 10:20. Mishna Brurah 316:4 paskens this way. </ref>
### This is obviously a much larger area than the first opinion.
### This is both a stringency with respect to trapping initially (i.e. the animal is "trapped" even if it's in a big area that requires more than one lunge to get it), but also a leniency with respect to trapping again (i.e. once the animal is in a pen of this size, then it will be permitted to bring the animal into the house, since it is already considered biblically trapped).
# It is still forbidden on a rabbinic level to trap an animal into a pen bigger than the above size.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 316:1, based on the mishna shabbat 106b. </ref>

===Which Animals Are Included?===
# Typically trapped ("mino nitzod")
## The Torah-level prohibition of [[trapping]] on [[Shabbat]] applies only to an animal that people normally trap. If, however, it is a type of animal that is not normally trapped, [[trapping]] it is forbidden only rabbinically.<ref>*The Gemara ([[Shabbat]] 106b) records a dispute between Rabanan and Rabbi Meir. Rabanan hold that there is a biblical prohibition to trap an animal that normally is trapped and there is a rabbinic prohibition to trap animals that are not usually trapped. Rabbi Meir, however, argues that both types of animals are included in the biblical prohibition. The Rambam (10:19 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:3 rule in accordance with Rabanan.
 According to Rashi 107a s.v. sh’lo l’tzorech, this petur is only when you are not trapping it to use it or something from it. See Tosfos Rid on 107b who explains how the rules of melcha sheina tzricha l’gufa apply in this context.
 Most Rishonim however think it is more of a categorical rule, because meleches tzad only applies to certain species (Tosfos 107a s.v. Shelo.). See Avnei Nezer O”C 189-7 who explains why such a limitation of the melacha exists.
 Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:33 clarifies that “normally trapped” refers to animals that are trapped for meat or hide, but animals that are trapped so that they don’t injure a person are not included in the biblical prohibition. </ref>
## A fly is an example of an animal which isn't usually trapped, so it is only rabbinically forbidden to trap a fly.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 316:3. </ref>
## The prohibition doesn’t apply to [[trapping]] people.<ref>The Rama 339:4 says that one may not catch a criminal on shabbat in order to put them in prison, because this is considered like din (lit: judgement) which is rabbinically forbidden on shabbat. The implication here seems to be that with respect to the melacha of tzad there is no problem with trapping the criminal on shabbat. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (chap 27 note 119) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman who discusses this at length and seems to conclude that [[trapping]] isn't applicable on a person, because a normal person wouldn't think of running away, unless he's running away from the police; even in such a case, since he will be put in prison amongst other people, he's not considered trapped. Yalkut Yosef 316:2 writes that the prohibition doesn't apply to people. See also Sh"t Avnei Nezer OC 189:22.</ref>
# Slow animals
## Some poskim permit [[trapping]] animals that move very slowly (e.g. turtle),<ref>The Gemara ([[Shabbat]] 106b) distinguishes between a deer that is blind or sleeping and one that is lame, old, or sick. If one traps a deer in the first category, there is a biblical prohibition, because it could run away; if one traps a deer in the second category, there is a rabbinic prohibition, because it does not run away. This is codified by the Rambam (10:21 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:2. The Mishna Brurah 316:8 explains the Rambam 10:24 as saying that [[trapping]] a young animal that cannot run away is only a rabbinic prohibition.
*Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:45 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that it is permitted to trap an animal that is easy to trap and doesn’t usually run away, such as an ant or turtle. Nonetheless, one may not move them, as they are [[muktzeh]]. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that a sick animal usually can run away, so [[trapping]] it is prohibited, but an ant always is easy to trap even if it tries to hide. The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 863) agrees with this ruling but qualifies that only small red ants may be trapped, while large black ants that can move very quickly may not be trapped.</ref> since they are essentially already trapped given how easy it is to catch, but others argue.<ref>Orchot [https://halachipedia.com/Shabbat Shabbat] (vol 1, p. 420, quoting Rav Elyashiv) and The [https://halachipedia.com/Shabbos Shabbos] Home (p. 339, note 4, based on the Chazon Ish) forbid [https://halachipedia.com/Trapping trapping] animals that move very slowly and are easy to trap, just like it is forbidden to trap an old or sick animal.</ref>
# Domesticated animals
## See below section for details.

=== Heter of the Rashba ===

# The Mishnah ([[Shabbat]] 106b) states that it is a biblical prohibition to close the door of a house on a deer.
# Nonetheles, the Rashba<ref>shabbat 107a s.v. Tosefta</ref> has a remarkably novel ruling that it is permitted to shut the door even if one knows that the deer is inside, provided that one's intent is to guard the house (even if one's intent is also to trap the deer).<ref>He bases this on the Yerushalmi shabbat 13:6, which he reads as permitting closing the door on the deer, as long as one has intent (primarily) for some other purpose such as guarding the house. This is a very surprising opinion, because one would have thought that this was a prime example of a psik reisha. Here you are closing the door for some reason, and an unintended result is that the deer gets trapped. This should be biblically forbidden as a psik reisha! And certainly if one has intent for both things (i.e. guarding the house and trapping the deer), then this should certainly be prohibited. It isn't even a psik reisha at that point. You are explicitly intending to trap the deer!</ref>
## This is really quite a difficult position to understand, and the later poskim work hard to give an explanation.<ref>Here are a few possibilities:

*(1) the shiltei giborim (38a b'dapei harif) says that maybe the rashba thinks that one is allowed to do a psik reisha if it accompanies a permitted act. Here, one is doing the permitted act of closing the door to guard the house, and so in conjunction with that one may also do a psik reisha. However, this is difficult, as seemingly every psik reisha is accompanying a permitted act...

*(2) the shiltei giborim also suggests that maybe the rashba understands psik reisha as only being relevant when the melacha always accompanies the permitted act. Here, it is entirely possible to close a door to a house without trapping a deer (e.g. if there's no deer in the house). This is similar to how rashi in zevachim 91b says that one may pour big droplets on a fire when libating wine and it isn't a psik reisha because it's possible to have poured small droplets (thus libating doesn't always have to come along with putting out the fire). This too is difficult, as seemingly there are many examples of psik reisha in which the two actions are not fundamentally linked in this way (and certainly l'halacha we don't understand psik reisha in this more limited way).

*(3) the Avnei Nezer O.C. 194 explains that really the heter of the rashba is limited to tzad, since this melacha is weird in that it doesn't result in any clear change in the cheftza upon which the melacha is performed. This is a "melacha garu'a" (lit: bad melacha), and so perhaps it will only be prohibited if one intends explicitly to do it. Rav Shimon Shkop has a similar idea. It's specifically by tzad that kavana plays an outsized role.</ref>
# The Ran<ref>shabbat 38a b'dapei harif s.v. Ha</ref> argues that if one knew that the deer was inside, even if he did not intend to trap, it is a psik reisha and hence forbidden.
## The halacha accords with the Ran against the Rashba.<ref>Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 4:35:13) sees from the Rama 316:3 that he rejects the Rashba, since the Rama there prohibits one from covering a box with flies in it even though one's intent is not to trap the flies but rather just to protect the contents of the box. In truth, this observation was actually made earlier by the Elya Raba and Rebbe Akiva Eiger (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:33). The Mishna Brurah 316:25 explicitly rejects the Rashba, and states in shaar hatziyon 316:33 that poskim are unwilling to rely upon the Rashba in basically all circumstances.</ref>

==Domesticated Animals / Pets==
# Many poskim hold that one may close the door of his house even if he owns a pet, provided that one of the following conditions is met:
## The pet is totally domesticated.<ref>The mishna shabbat 107a states that if one has an animal or bird in their "reshut" (lit: domain), they are patur if they trap it. The simple understanding of this mishna is that there is still an isur drabanan to trap it (since generally when the mishnayot in shabbat use the phrase "patur" it means that it is rabbinically prohibited). However, the haga'ot maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 10, ot 200), as well as the ba'al ha'itur (cited in the Rosh betizah 3:1) hold that perhaps this mishna is really saying that it's permitted to trap such an animal, since you aren't really doing anything by "trapping" an animal which is already in your reshut. The Shulchan Aruch 316:12 seems to pasken this way, as understood by the Gra (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:81). The mishna brurah 316:53 explains that what it means for an animal to be in your "reshut" is that it is a domesticated animal that is used to living in your house and will come back at night even if it leaves during the day. Such an animal is extremely easy to "trap", since it is essentially already trapped and part of your household, and thus there would be no problem to bring it into the house from the outside on shabbat (leaving aside questions of muktzah).

*However, the Rama 316:12 argues and says that it is rabbinically prohibited to trap an animal or bird even if it is domesticated in your house. He understands the mishna in shabbat k'pshuto, that "patur" does not mean mutar. The Mishna Brurah 316:57 states that most achronim pasken like the Rama against the Shulchan Aruch. Thus it should be rabbinically prohibited to trap even domesticated animals.

*However, the Rama continues and states that a cow or horse that rebels, and all the more so a regular animal that rebels, is biblically prohibited to trap. Why does he put cows and horses in a different category as other animals? The answer is found in the Darchei Moshe 316:2, in which he cites from the Shiltei Giborim that one is allowed to bring in a cow or horse into his house, but not other animals. The Mishna Brurah 316:59 explains the reason for the distinction; cows and horses are exceptionally docile, and even before a person trains them to always come back to the house, their nature is that they will just allow you to corral them. Thus, there is no isur of tzad on these animals whatsoever (assuming they don't rebel).

*Chayei Adam 30:4 thus writes that a domesticated animal that relaxes and submits when grabbed by its owner may be trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:57 and The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 868) agree. Dirshu mishna brurah (316 footnote 102) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that a domesticated cat or dog which serves as a pet has this status as well, and so it will be permitted to close the door of the house on them provided that they haven't rebelled.</ref>
## The house is big enough that the pet doesn’t feel like it is being confined.<ref>Chut HaShani (vol 1, p. 120) writes that there is a rabbinic prohibition only if the animal feels that it is being confined. It is permitted to trap an animal in an area that is so large that it doesn’t even realize it is being confined. The [[Shabbos]] Home (p. 353) agrees.</ref>
## The house is large, and one’s intent is to protect the house from burglary (not to prevent the pet from leaving).<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:1 (based on the mishna shabbat 106b) establishes that it is a rabbinic prohibition to confine an animal to a space even if it is not completely trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:4 explains that an animal is considered “not completely trapped” if one couldn’t grab it with one exertion. Therefore, Mishna Brurah 316:5 writes that one may close the door of a house even though a bird is inside, if it is cold outside and one’s intention is not to trap the bird. He reasons that since [[trapping]] the bird is only a rabbinic prohibition (since the bird is not really trapped in a house), it is permitted if one does not intend to trap it. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 174) explains that the Mishna Brurah holds that a psik reisha of a rabbinic prohibition is permitted when there is a great need. Therefore, the 39 Melachos (Tzad, note 144a) says that one may close one’s door if a pet is inside as long as he is closing the door to protect against burglary or the elements, and the house is large (since then it's only an isur drabanan to trap it).</ref>
## However, if the animal is rebellious, then one may not trap it.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 106. Rama 316:12 distinguishes between a cow / horse that rebels (biblically forbidden to trap it) and one that has not rebelled (totally permitted to trap it). </ref>
# Keeping an animal trapped
## Some poskim hold that if an animal is trapped in an enclosure, and then one opens the door, it is permitted to close it again, since this isn't really considered like a new trapping.<ref>The mishna shabbat 106b states that if there is a deer inside of a house and the door is open, and one person sits in front of the entrance to block it, they have violated tzad. If a second person sits behind them, they haven't done anything. If the first person then gets up and leaves, the second person may remain, since he isn't currently doing any action (i.e. we don't make him get up, even though right now he's the one keeping the deer in the house). The tosfot yom tov on this mishna explains that it must be that when the first guy got up, he walked into the house, because if he were to go towards the outside, the second person would have to get up to make room to enable him to pass, and then it would indeed be prohibited for the second guy to sit back down, since at that point he would be actively entrapping the deer in the house. However, the Magen Avraham 316:11 argues and suggests that it should even be permitted for the second guy to stand up and enable the first guy to leave, and then to sit back down and block the entrance. Why is this not tzad? The Magen Avraham seemingly understands that since the animal is already trapped inside the house, the fact that for a brief moment, the entrance became unblocked doesn't give the animal the status of "untrapped". It is still considered "trapped", and so there is no problem for the second guy to re-block the entrance.</ref>
## However, most poskim disagree and do not allow re-blocking the entrance.<ref>The Mishna Brurah 316:25 paskens like the tosfot yom tov against the Magen Avraham, to now allow the re-blocking the entrance after it was left exposed. The Biur Halacha (316:6 s.v. v'halach) explains that the majority of achronim reject the Magen Avraham, and that's why he paskenned like the Tosfot yom tov. </ref>
## Nonetheless, it is a reason to be lenient if combined with other factors.<ref>The Biur Halacha (316:6 s.v. v'halach) states that one may rely upon the Magen Avraham if the trapping in question is only rabbinic anyway for a different reason, such as if the house is really big (so it is not considered "one lunge"), or if the animal is domesticated such that it would come back at night on its own (even though we are strict like the Rama in 316:12 to prohibit trapping domesticated animals, in contrast to the Shulchan Aruch who permits it, we can rely upon the Magen Avraham in such an instance).</ref>
# In any case, carrying the animal to an enclosed area is prohibited because they are muktzeh.<ref> Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 123 </ref>

==Safek Psik Reisha==
# If there is a fly or other insect in a small box or drawer, one may not close it fully on shabbat, thereby trapping the insect.<ref>The Tur siman 316 cites from the Ba'al Hatruma that one may not close a chest that has flies in it, since it is rabbinically forbidden to trap flies on shabbat (they are not a species that is typically trapped), and this is a psik reisha that they will be trapped. The Tur himself disagrees for two reasons. (1) the flies aren't really considered trapped in the box, since the second you open the box they will fly away out of your grasp. (2) you don't have kavana (lit: intent) to trap the flies, but rather just to close the box. It is unclear what exactly the Tur means by this last argument. Is he saying that there is no problem of psik reisha by an isur drabanan? Perhaps. This is indeed the position of the Terumat Hadeshen (siman 64, cited in Magen Avraham 314:5). The Magen Avraham himself argues and holds that a psik reisha on an isur drabanan is also asur. The Beit Yosef and the Bach both recommend being strict like the ba'al hatruma against the Tur, and not to close the chest if there are insects inside that will inevitably be trapped.

*However, the Rama 316:3 cites this halacha in an interesting way. He states that one may not close a SMALL box that has flies in it (seemingly the shita of the ba'al hatruma), but that others are lenient and permit it (i.e. the Tur). Seemingly, the Rama understood that even the ba'al hatruma would allow one to close a BIG box. The Mishna Brurah 316:15 explains that a big box is a double drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped, and the area is bigger than "a single lunge"), so we can be lenient for a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one has no interest in trapping the fly) on a double drabanan. </ref>
## If one is unsure whether or not there is a fly or other insect in the box / drawer, one may close it.<ref>Taz 316:3. Mishna Brurah 316:16. The reason is that this is a safek psik reisha on an isur drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped), so we can be lenient.</ref>
### There is an interesting question in the poskim about how to view a safek psik reisha (e.g. you are unsure if there are flies in the box; if there are, then closing it is a psik reisha of tzad).<ref>Generally speaking, if one performs an action on shabbat that may lead to undesired melacha but might not, that action is deemed a davar she'eino mitkavein and is permitted on shabbat. For example, one may drag a bench on the ground even though there is a chance that it will create a furrow, since one is not interested in the furrow, and because the furrow won't certainly be made (i.e. it's not a psik reisha). See Shulchan Aruch 337:1. In theory, one might think that this case should be treated exactly the same. I just want to close the drawer, and am not interested in trapping the fly. The melacha of trapping may or may not occur, depending on if there really is a fly in the drawer or not. Why should this be different than a regular davar she'eino mitkavein? </ref>
#### Some say that it should be treated like any other davar she'eino mitkavein (action which may lead to undesired melacha but may not), and thus totally permitted.<ref>Taz 316:3</ref>
#### Others say it should be treated as a safek like any other safek.<ref>Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, citing Chiddushei Rebbe Akiva Eiger YD:87:6. He explains that one can distinguish between a safek about the future vs. a safek about the past. Only a safek about the future (whether this action will cause a hole or not) is considered a davar she'eino mitkavein, but not a safek about the past (are there currently flies in this box or not).</ref>
### This question becomes relevant when the melacha under discussion would be biblical (e.g. you want to close the door of your house and you aren't sure whether there is a deer inside or not).
#### If we treat safek psik reisha as a regular davar she'eino mitkavein, then it would be mutar to close the door of the house, but if we treat it as a safek on the act in question then it would be prohibited, since it is biblically forbidden to trap a deer in the house, and safek deorayta l'chumra.<ref>See Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, who makes this point.</ref>
# However, if the box / drawer is big, then one may fully close it on shabbat, even though there is a fly inside.<ref>Rama 316:3 and Mishna Brurah 316:15. See previous note.</ref>

== Harmful Creatures ==

# It is permitted to trap even non-lethal creatures (e.g. snakes and scorpions) on shabbat, if one's intention is to prevent them from causing harm.<ref>The mishna eduyot 2:5 says that if one traps a snake for the purpose of using it in a healing potion, then one has violated tzad, but if one merely wants to prevent it from biting him, then one is patur. Shmuel (gemara shabbat 107a) explains that this is one of the rare exceptions in which "patur" really means that it is totally permitted, and not rabbinically forbidden. Why should trapping the snake for this reason be permitted?

*One approach is to say that if one isn't interested in the snake for its own sake, but rather just to get rid of it, then this is a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. We pasken like Rebbe Shimon that this is only rabbinically forbidden in general. Here, since there is potential human suffering at risk, chazal were lenient and allowed one to trap the snake. Tosfot (shabbat 3a s.v. hatzad nachash) explains like this.

*However, the fascinating thing as that the Rambam himself paskens like Rebbe Yehudah with respect to melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa (see hilchot shabbat 1:8), and yet he still cites the leniency to trap the snake to prevent it from biting you (hilchot shabbat 10:25). Furthermore, the Rambam there states explicitly that the type of snake he is referring to is one which is non-lethal, so there's no concern of pikuach nefesh here. What's the rationale of the Rambam? Shouldn't this be biblically forbidden? There are a few approaches to answer this question.

*(1) The Ramban (shabbat 42a s.v. mechabin) cites from the Behag that perhaps a damage that might occur to the public is viewed as if it is pikuach nefesh, even though it isn't ("היזק של רבים כסכנת נפשות חשיב ליה שמואל").

*(2) The Aruch Hashulchan 316:19 suggests that since the whole point of trapping is to bring the animal into your own domain, so when you trap an animal in order to remove it from your domain (e.g. you want the snake as far away from you as possible so that it doesn't damage you), this is not merely a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa, but rather it just isn't the melacha of tzad at all.

*(3) Maggid Mishna (hilchot shabbat 10:17) understands that the Rambam only permitted trapping the snake in a weird way ("shinuy") that would normally only be rabbinically prohibited. He has a diyuk from the language of the Rambam himself (in hilchot shabbat 10:25), who goes out of his way to tell you how you may trap the snake to prevent it from biting you, seemingly indicating that only these limited methods are allowed.

*(4) The Chemed Moshe (cited in Biur halacha 316:7 s.v. nechashim) thinks that the Rambam understood that snakes are considered a species not typically trapped (ein b'mino nitzod), such that there would only ever be an isur drabanan to trap them. The Biur Halacha himself objects to this approach.

*(5) Rav Chaim Brisker (hilchot shabbat 10:17) thinks that the Rambam paskens like the position of the Aruch that a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one performs an action which inevitably results in melacha, but one is disinterested in that melacha) is totally permitted [this is not the accepted position l'halacha, as we hold that such an action is still rabbinically forbidden]. Here, since you are just trying to prevent the snake from biting you, the trapping that results is an undesired consequence, and hence constitutes a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei. </ref>
# One may not trap non-damaging creatures (e.g. mosquito), unless they are actively biting you.<ref>The gemara shabbat 107b cites a whether it is forbidden to trap a פרעוש (mosquito) biblically, or only rabbinically. The debate turns on whether one is only obligated for trapping a creature whose species is typically trapped (people do not typically trap mosquitos to use them for anything). However, tosfot s.v. hatzad point out that even though we pasken like Rebbe Yehoshua (that it's rabbinically forbidden to trap them), if they are biting you, it is permitted to grab it and throw it off, even though this violates both muktzeh and tzad (rabbinically). There is a debate amongst the poskim whether tosfot was only permitting trapping the mosquito if it was actively engaged in biting, or even if it was in a place on your clothing such that it might come to start biting. There are 4 positions on this question, in order of lenient to strict:

*(1) The Taz 316:8 thinks even if it is on the outside of one's garment, it is permitted to trap it, as long as this garment is directly on the skin (as opposed to a jacket).

*(2) The beit yosef is medayek in the Ran (38b b'dapei harif) that it's permitted only if it is on the inside of one's garment, since now there is a real concern that it might bite.

*(3) The Tur seems to hold that one may only pluck off the mosquito if it is actually on the skin.

*(4) The Rokeach (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:63) holds that it is only permitted if it is actually biting, since only then is it actually causing pain, and we would allow one to violate the isur drabanan of trapping it in order to remove the pain. This also seems to be the position of the Gra (as understood by Mishna Brurah 316:37).

*l'halacha, the Mishna Brurah 316:37 cites numerous shitot, and concludes in shaar hatziyon 316:63 that it is proper to be strict and only trap it if it is actually biting. However, he also states that one shouldn't object to those who are lenient.</ref>
# There is a debate whether one may trap creatures with painful but relatively harmless bites (e.g. bee, wasp, hornet).
## Some compare these insects to mosquitos and forbid trapping them unless they are actively biting or stinging you,<ref>The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a פרעוש (mosquito). Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.</ref> whereas others are lenient and allow trapping them any time one is afraid of being stung.<ref>Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to trap it even if not being chased.</ref>

==Related Pages==
[http://halachipedia.com/documents/5773/5.pdf Trapping on Shabbat]
==Links==
* Article on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/725098/Rabbi_Josh_Flug/The_Melacha_of_Trapping_on_Shabbat The Melacha of Trapping on Shabbat] by Rabbi Josh Flug
* [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/802775/Rabbi_Michael_Taubes/_Parhsas_VaEra_Trapping_Animals_and_People_on_Shabbos_ Trapping Animals and People on Shabbos] by Rabbi Michael Taubes

==Sources==
<References/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tzad

2024-07-28T23:11:31Z

Gsilver2: /* Safek Psik Reisha */

{{Okay}}
[[File:Tzad.png|thumb]]
Trapping a living creature is one of the prohibited 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. The details of this melacha (e.g. how to define "trapped", how it applies to domesticated animals, which species of animals are included, etc.) are discussed below.

==Definition==
# In the mishkan, they would trap rams to use their skins for the curtains, and they would trap the chilazon for the dye known as techeilet.<ref> See Rashi 73a s.v. Hatzad es hatzvi. See also gemara 75a </ref>
# Tzad is the melacha of containing a living creature in order to use it (or part of it).<ref> Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel on 106a (See also Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:19) indicate that the paradigmatic way to trap an animal is to chase it into a house or some other sufficiently small place and close the door so that the animal can’t escape.</ref>
## One has also violated the melacha for simply locking the door when the animal is already inside.<ref> Mishna 106b, Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:23 </ref>
# Tzad doesn’t appear to have any toldot.<ref> Some meforshim try to explain how some ways of trapping, done differently than how it was done in the mishkan, are indeed only toldot. See Avnei Nezer O”C Siman 195 </ref>

=== Setting a Trap on Shabbat ===
# Interestingly enough, if one actually sets a trap on shabbat, one may not necessarily be violating tzad.
## Some poskim say that one is obligated for setting a trap that will definitely catch something on Shabbat.<ref> Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 316:9) based on Tosfot (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin). Even though the actual trapping only takes place at a later point in time (once one is no longer taking any direct action), nonetheless one is considered to have violated tzad since they did an action on shabbat which would certainly result in trapping. Presumably, the Pri Megadim understands that the time delay does not constitute "grama". </ref>
## Others say that one is only obligated if the animal is already entering the trap as he sets it.<ref> Mishna Brurah 316:18 from Magen Avraham, based on Tosfos 17b. Presumably they understand that the time delay makes this a case of grama, and so not biblically prohibited. See Tosfot Harosh (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin) who states explicitly that one is exempt if one sets a trap on shabbat and it catches an animal at a later point in time, "דאינו צד בידיים" (one isn't directly involved at the time of the trapping). For more details, see ''Toras Hamelochos'' vol. 5 p. 21-33 </ref>
### Sephardim hold that it is permitted to put out a mouse trap on Shabbat since it is only grama.<ref>Chazon Ovadia v. 5 p. 118</ref>
### Ashkenazim are strict.<ref>Mishna Brurah 316:18</ref>

=== Unique Nature of Tzad ===
# There are a few unique features of tzad:
## It doesn't affect a change in the object upon which the melacha is being performed (i.e. the animal). This is in contrast to most other melachot, which do affect a change in the object upon which the melacha is performed.<ref> Avnei Nezer O”C 189:7 </ref>
## It can perhaps be violated even without doing an action at the time that the melacha takes place (see above discussion regarding setting a trap on shabbat).
# What exactly is the definition of tzad?
## The achronim take different approaches to this question:
### Some define the melacha as bringing the animal from a state of being "free" to a state of being "trapped".
### Others define the melacha as the action of trapping itself, in contrast to other melachot which are result-oriented.<ref> Shiurei Rav Shimon Shkop Kesubos 4:2. The idea here is that most melachot affect the object upon which the melacha is performed. If I plow, there are now holes in the ground. If I write, there are now letters on the page. Thus, those melachot are result-oriented. The prohibition is to bring about a particular result. However, trapping has no such affect. The animal looks exactly the same before and after the trapping (it's just in a more enclosed space). Thus, it is reasonable to say that perhaps the prohibition is not defined as bringing the animal to a state of being trapped (since really this isn't a different cheftza), but rather as the act of trapping itself. </ref>
#### This approach helps explain why one’s mindset matters more by tzad than it does by other melachot.<ref> See for some examples Rashba 107a based on Yerushalmi and Magid Mishna Shabbos 10:17 </ref>
===How Enclosed is Considered "Trapped"?===
# The biblical violation of [[trapping]] is only violated when one encloses the animal in a space small enough that a person could catch it in one "שחייא" (lit: lunge).<ref> The Mishna shabbat 106b states that if one traps an animal into a pen which is still "מחוסר צידה" (lit: missing trapping), then it is only rabbinically forbidden. In other words, one has only violated the melacha of trapping if they have enclosed the animal in a space small enough such that it can be easily grasped without needing to "trap" it again. How small is this space? The gemara 106b cites rav ashi as holding that if you are able to grasp the animal in one "שחיא" then this is considered biblically trapped.</ref> There is a debate as to what exactly this means:
## Some poskim hold that you have to be able to grasp the animal in one lunge.<ref>Ritva shabbat 106b s.v. kol heicha. The Ritva didn't have in his girsa of the gemara the phrase "דרהיט בתריה" (lit: to run after it), and so this perhaps leads him to his interpretation.</ref>
## Most poskim argue that you just have to be able to grasp the animal in one sprinting session (without stopping for a breather).<ref>Rashbah beitzah 24a, as well as Maggid Mishna hilchot shabbat 10:20. Mishna Brurah 316:4 paskens this way. </ref>
### This is obviously a much larger area than the first opinion.
### This is both a stringency with respect to trapping initially (i.e. the animal is "trapped" even if it's in a big area that requires more than one lunge to get it), but also a leniency with respect to trapping again (i.e. once the animal is in a pen of this size, then it will be permitted to bring the animal into the house, since it is already considered biblically trapped).
# It is still forbidden on a rabbinic level to trap an animal into a pen bigger than the above size.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 316:1, based on the mishna shabbat 106b. </ref>

===Which Animals Are Included?===
# Typically trapped ("mino nitzod")
## The Torah-level prohibition of [[trapping]] on [[Shabbat]] applies only to an animal that people normally trap. If, however, it is a type of animal that is not normally trapped, [[trapping]] it is forbidden only rabbinically.<ref>*The Gemara ([[Shabbat]] 106b) records a dispute between Rabanan and Rabbi Meir. Rabanan hold that there is a biblical prohibition to trap an animal that normally is trapped and there is a rabbinic prohibition to trap animals that are not usually trapped. Rabbi Meir, however, argues that both types of animals are included in the biblical prohibition. The Rambam (10:19 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:3 rule in accordance with Rabanan.
 According to Rashi 107a s.v. sh’lo l’tzorech, this petur is only when you are not trapping it to use it or something from it. See Tosfos Rid on 107b who explains how the rules of melcha sheina tzricha l’gufa apply in this context.
 Most Rishonim however think it is more of a categorical rule, because meleches tzad only applies to certain species (Tosfos 107a s.v. Shelo.). See Avnei Nezer O”C 189-7 who explains why such a limitation of the melacha exists.
 Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:33 clarifies that “normally trapped” refers to animals that are trapped for meat or hide, but animals that are trapped so that they don’t injure a person are not included in the biblical prohibition. </ref>
## A fly is an example of an animal which isn't usually trapped, so it is only rabbinically forbidden to trap a fly.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 316:3. </ref>
## The prohibition doesn’t apply to [[trapping]] people.<ref>The Rama 339:4 says that one may not catch a criminal on shabbat in order to put them in prison, because this is considered like din (lit: judgement) which is rabbinically forbidden on shabbat. The implication here seems to be that with respect to the melacha of tzad there is no problem with trapping the criminal on shabbat. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (chap 27 note 119) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman who discusses this at length and seems to conclude that [[trapping]] isn't applicable on a person, because a normal person wouldn't think of running away, unless he's running away from the police; even in such a case, since he will be put in prison amongst other people, he's not considered trapped. Yalkut Yosef 316:2 writes that the prohibition doesn't apply to people. See also Sh"t Avnei Nezer OC 189:22.</ref>
# Slow animals
## Some poskim permit [[trapping]] animals that move very slowly (e.g. turtle),<ref>The Gemara ([[Shabbat]] 106b) distinguishes between a deer that is blind or sleeping and one that is lame, old, or sick. If one traps a deer in the first category, there is a biblical prohibition, because it could run away; if one traps a deer in the second category, there is a rabbinic prohibition, because it does not run away. This is codified by the Rambam (10:21 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:2. The Mishna Brurah 316:8 explains the Rambam 10:24 as saying that [[trapping]] a young animal that cannot run away is only a rabbinic prohibition.
*Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:45 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that it is permitted to trap an animal that is easy to trap and doesn’t usually run away, such as an ant or turtle. Nonetheless, one may not move them, as they are [[muktzeh]]. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that a sick animal usually can run away, so [[trapping]] it is prohibited, but an ant always is easy to trap even if it tries to hide. The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 863) agrees with this ruling but qualifies that only small red ants may be trapped, while large black ants that can move very quickly may not be trapped.</ref> since they are essentially already trapped given how easy it is to catch, but others argue.<ref>Orchot [https://halachipedia.com/Shabbat Shabbat] (vol 1, p. 420, quoting Rav Elyashiv) and The [https://halachipedia.com/Shabbos Shabbos] Home (p. 339, note 4, based on the Chazon Ish) forbid [https://halachipedia.com/Trapping trapping] animals that move very slowly and are easy to trap, just like it is forbidden to trap an old or sick animal.</ref>
# Domesticated animals
## See below section for details.

=== Heter of the Rashba ===

# Discuss this.

==Domesticated Animals / Pets==
# Many poskim hold that one may close the door of his house even if he owns a pet provided that the pet either is totally domesticated, it doesn’t realize that it is being confined, or if the house is large and one’s intent is to protect the house from burglary.<ref>
* The Mishnah ([[Shabbat]] 106b) states that it is a biblical prohibition to close the door of a house on a deer. The Rashba (107a s.v. Tosefta) understands the Yerushalmi as saying that it is permitted to shut the door even if a deer is inside if one’s intent is to guard his house. The Ran (38a s.v. Ha), however, argues that if one knew that the deer was inside, even if he did not intend to trap, it is a psik reisha and is forbidden. Avnei Nezer O.C. 194 defends the Rashba, but Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 4:35:13) proves from the Rama 316:3 that the halacha does not follow the Rashba.
* S”A 316:1 establishes that it is a rabbinic prohibition to confine an animal to a space even if it is not completely trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:4 explains that an animal is considered “not completely trapped” if one couldn’t grab it with one exertion. Therefore, Mishna Brurah 316:5 writes that one may close the door of a house even though a bird is inside if it is cold outside and one’s intention is not to trap the bird. He reasons that while actually [[trapping]] the bird is a rabbinic prohibition, as the bird is not completely trapped in a house, it is permitted if one does not intend to trap it. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 174) explains that the Mishna Brurah holds that a psik reisha of a rabbinic prohibition is permitted when there is a great need. Therefore, the 39 Melachos (Tzad, note 144a) says that one may close one’s door if a pet is inside as long as he is closing the door to protect against burglary or the elements and the house is large. Orchot [[Shabbat]] (p. 421) agrees for a different reason.
* Chayei Adam 30:4 writes that a domesticated animal that relaxes and submits when grabbed by its owner may be trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:57 and The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 868) agree.
* Chut HaShani (vol 1, p. 120) writes that there is a rabbinic prohibition only if the animal feels that it is being confined. It is permitted to trap an animal in an area that is so large that it doesn’t even realize it is being confined. The [[Shabbos]] Home (p. 353) agrees.</ref>
# However, one may only trap a submissive animal, not a rebellious one. <ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 106 </ref> In any case, carrying the animal to an enclosed area is prohibited because they are muktzeh. <ref> Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 123 </ref>

==Safek Psik Reisha==
# If there is a fly or other insect in a small box or drawer, one may not close it fully on shabbat, thereby trapping the insect.<ref>The Tur siman 316 cites from the Ba'al Hatruma that one may not close a chest that has flies in it, since it is rabbinically forbidden to trap flies on shabbat (they are not a species that is typically trapped), and this is a psik reisha that they will be trapped. The Tur himself disagrees for two reasons. (1) the flies aren't really considered trapped in the box, since the second you open the box they will fly away out of your grasp. (2) you don't have kavana (lit: intent) to trap the flies, but rather just to close the box. It is unclear what exactly the Tur means by this last argument. Is he saying that there is no problem of psik reisha by an isur drabanan? Perhaps. This is indeed the position of the Terumat Hadeshen (siman 64, cited in Magen Avraham 314:5). The Magen Avraham himself argues and holds that a psik reisha on an isur drabanan is also asur. The Beit Yosef and the Bach both recommend being strict like the ba'al hatruma against the Tur, and not to close the chest if there are insects inside that will inevitably be trapped.

*However, the Rama 316:3 cites this halacha in an interesting way. He states that one may not close a SMALL box that has flies in it (seemingly the shita of the ba'al hatruma), but that others are lenient and permit it (i.e. the Tur). Seemingly, the Rama understood that even the ba'al hatruma would allow one to close a BIG box. The Mishna Brurah 316:15 explains that a big box is a double drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped, and the area is bigger than "a single lunge"), so we can be lenient for a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one has no interest in trapping the fly) on a double drabanan. </ref>
## If one is unsure whether or not there is a fly or other insect in the box / drawer, one may close it.<ref>Taz 316:3. Mishna Brurah 316:16. The reason is that this is a safek psik reisha on an isur drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped), so we can be lenient.</ref>
### There is an interesting question in the poskim about how to view a safek psik reisha (e.g. you are unsure if there are flies in the box; if there are, then closing it is a psik reisha of tzad).<ref>Generally speaking, if one performs an action on shabbat that may lead to undesired melacha but might not, that action is deemed a davar she'eino mitkavein and is permitted on shabbat. For example, one may drag a bench on the ground even though there is a chance that it will create a furrow, since one is not interested in the furrow, and because the furrow won't certainly be made (i.e. it's not a psik reisha). See Shulchan Aruch 337:1. In theory, one might think that this case should be treated exactly the same. I just want to close the drawer, and am not interested in trapping the fly. The melacha of trapping may or may not occur, depending on if there really is a fly in the drawer or not. Why should this be different than a regular davar she'eino mitkavein? </ref>
#### Some say that it should be treated like any other davar she'eino mitkavein (action which may lead to undesired melacha but may not), and thus totally permitted.<ref>Taz 316:3</ref>
#### Others say it should be treated as a safek like any other safek.<ref>Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, citing Chiddushei Rebbe Akiva Eiger YD:87:6. He explains that one can distinguish between a safek about the future vs. a safek about the past. Only a safek about the future (whether this action will cause a hole or not) is considered a davar she'eino mitkavein, but not a safek about the past (are there currently flies in this box or not).</ref>
### This question becomes relevant when the melacha under discussion would be biblical (e.g. you want to close the door of your house and you aren't sure whether there is a deer inside or not).
#### If we treat safek psik reisha as a regular davar she'eino mitkavein, then it would be mutar to close the door of the house, but if we treat it as a safek on the act in question then it would be prohibited, since it is biblically forbidden to trap a deer in the house, and safek deorayta l'chumra.<ref>See Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, who makes this point.</ref>
# However, if the box / drawer is big, then one may fully close it on shabbat, even though there is a fly inside.<ref>Rama 316:3 and Mishna Brurah 316:15. See previous note.</ref>

== Harmful Creatures ==

# It is permitted to trap even non-lethal creatures (e.g. snakes and scorpions) on shabbat, if one's intention is to prevent them from causing harm.<ref>The mishna eduyot 2:5 says that if one traps a snake for the purpose of using it in a healing potion, then one has violated tzad, but if one merely wants to prevent it from biting him, then one is patur. Shmuel (gemara shabbat 107a) explains that this is one of the rare exceptions in which "patur" really means that it is totally permitted, and not rabbinically forbidden. Why should trapping the snake for this reason be permitted?

*One approach is to say that if one isn't interested in the snake for its own sake, but rather just to get rid of it, then this is a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. We pasken like Rebbe Shimon that this is only rabbinically forbidden in general. Here, since there is potential human suffering at risk, chazal were lenient and allowed one to trap the snake. Tosfot (shabbat 3a s.v. hatzad nachash) explains like this.

*However, the fascinating thing as that the Rambam himself paskens like Rebbe Yehudah with respect to melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa (see hilchot shabbat 1:8), and yet he still cites the leniency to trap the snake to prevent it from biting you (hilchot shabbat 10:25). Furthermore, the Rambam there states explicitly that the type of snake he is referring to is one which is non-lethal, so there's no concern of pikuach nefesh here. What's the rationale of the Rambam? Shouldn't this be biblically forbidden? There are a few approaches to answer this question.

*(1) The Ramban (shabbat 42a s.v. mechabin) cites from the Behag that perhaps a damage that might occur to the public is viewed as if it is pikuach nefesh, even though it isn't ("היזק של רבים כסכנת נפשות חשיב ליה שמואל").

*(2) The Aruch Hashulchan 316:19 suggests that since the whole point of trapping is to bring the animal into your own domain, so when you trap an animal in order to remove it from your domain (e.g. you want the snake as far away from you as possible so that it doesn't damage you), this is not merely a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa, but rather it just isn't the melacha of tzad at all.

*(3) Maggid Mishna (hilchot shabbat 10:17) understands that the Rambam only permitted trapping the snake in a weird way ("shinuy") that would normally only be rabbinically prohibited. He has a diyuk from the language of the Rambam himself (in hilchot shabbat 10:25), who goes out of his way to tell you how you may trap the snake to prevent it from biting you, seemingly indicating that only these limited methods are allowed.

*(4) The Chemed Moshe (cited in Biur halacha 316:7 s.v. nechashim) thinks that the Rambam understood that snakes are considered a species not typically trapped (ein b'mino nitzod), such that there would only ever be an isur drabanan to trap them. The Biur Halacha himself objects to this approach.

*(5) Rav Chaim Brisker (hilchot shabbat 10:17) thinks that the Rambam paskens like the position of the Aruch that a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one performs an action which inevitably results in melacha, but one is disinterested in that melacha) is totally permitted [this is not the accepted position l'halacha, as we hold that such an action is still rabbinically forbidden]. Here, since you are just trying to prevent the snake from biting you, the trapping that results is an undesired consequence, and hence constitutes a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei. </ref>
# One may not trap non-damaging creatures (e.g. mosquito), unless they are actively biting you.<ref>The gemara shabbat 107b cites a whether it is forbidden to trap a פרעוש (mosquito) biblically, or only rabbinically. The debate turns on whether one is only obligated for trapping a creature whose species is typically trapped (people do not typically trap mosquitos to use them for anything). However, tosfot s.v. hatzad point out that even though we pasken like Rebbe Yehoshua (that it's rabbinically forbidden to trap them), if they are biting you, it is permitted to grab it and throw it off, even though this violates both muktzeh and tzad (rabbinically). There is a debate amongst the poskim whether tosfot was only permitting trapping the mosquito if it was actively engaged in biting, or even if it was in a place on your clothing such that it might come to start biting. There are 4 positions on this question, in order of lenient to strict:

*(1) The Taz 316:8 thinks even if it is on the outside of one's garment, it is permitted to trap it, as long as this garment is directly on the skin (as opposed to a jacket).

*(2) The beit yosef is medayek in the Ran (38b b'dapei harif) that it's permitted only if it is on the inside of one's garment, since now there is a real concern that it might bite.

*(3) The Tur seems to hold that one may only pluck off the mosquito if it is actually on the skin.

*(4) The Rokeach (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:63) holds that it is only permitted if it is actually biting, since only then is it actually causing pain, and we would allow one to violate the isur drabanan of trapping it in order to remove the pain. This also seems to be the position of the Gra (as understood by Mishna Brurah 316:37).

*l'halacha, the Mishna Brurah 316:37 cites numerous shitot, and concludes in shaar hatziyon 316:63 that it is proper to be strict and only trap it if it is actually biting. However, he also states that one shouldn't object to those who are lenient.</ref>
# There is a debate whether one may trap creatures with painful but relatively harmless bites (e.g. bee, wasp, hornet).
## Some compare these insects to mosquitos and forbid trapping them unless they are actively biting or stinging you,<ref>The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a פרעוש (mosquito). Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.</ref> whereas others are lenient and allow trapping them any time one is afraid of being stung.<ref>Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to trap it even if not being chased.</ref>

==Related Pages==
[http://halachipedia.com/documents/5773/5.pdf Trapping on Shabbat]
==Links==
* Article on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/725098/Rabbi_Josh_Flug/The_Melacha_of_Trapping_on_Shabbat The Melacha of Trapping on Shabbat] by Rabbi Josh Flug
* [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/802775/Rabbi_Michael_Taubes/_Parhsas_VaEra_Trapping_Animals_and_People_on_Shabbos_ Trapping Animals and People on Shabbos] by Rabbi Michael Taubes

==Sources==
<References/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Tzad

2024-07-28T22:21:55Z

Gsilver2: /* Harmful Creatures */

Tzad

2024-07-28T22:17:12Z

Gsilver2: /* Harmful Creatures */

Tzad

2024-07-28T22:00:14Z

Gsilver2: /* Which Animals Are Included? */

Tzad

2024-07-28T21:32:31Z

Gsilver2: /* Toldot */

Tzad

2024-07-28T20:14:54Z

Gsilver2:

Tzad

2024-07-28T19:49:19Z

Gsilver2:

{{Okay}}
[[File:Download-1.png|thumb]]
Trapping a living creature is one of the prohibited 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. The details of this melacha (e.g. how to define "trapped", how it applies to domesticated animals, which species of animals are included, etc.) are discussed below.

==Definition==
# The basic idea of tzad is to contain a living creature to use it or something from it.<ref> Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel on 106a (See also Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:19) indicate that the paradigmatic way to trap an animal is to chase it into a house or some other sufficiently small place and close the door so that the animal can’t escape.</ref> One is also chayav for simply locking the door when the animal is already inside.<ref> Mishna 106b, Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:23 </ref> If one grabs an animal that is also Tzad.
# Interestingly enough, a case when one is not always chayav is setting a trap. Some poskim say one is chayav for setting a trap that will definitely catch something on Shabbos.<ref> Pri Megadim-Eshel Avraham 317:9 based on Tosfos 17b </ref> Others however say one is only chayav if the animal is already entering the trap as he sets it.<ref> Mishna Brurah 316:18 from Magen Avraham based on Tosfos 17b. For more details see ''Toras Hamelochos'' vol. 5 p. 21-33 </ref>
# The Achronim explain in different contexts why tzad may be different than other melachos. There are different variations of the idea that Tzeida doesn’t affect a physical change in the animal, the object of the melacha.<ref> Avnei Nezer O”C 189:7 </ref> Some extend this idea to explaining that unlike other melachos where the melacha is the goal-oriented, here it is the action that is prohibited.<ref> Shiurei Rav Shimon Shkop Kesubos 4:2 </ref> These approaches help explain why we find in various places that one’s mindset matters more by Tzad than by other melachos.<ref> See for some examples Rashba 107a based on Yerushalmi and Magid Mishna Shabbos 10:17 </ref>
# Sephardim hold that it is permitted to put out a mouse trap on Shabbat since it is only grama.<ref>Chazon Ovadia v. 5 p. 118</ref> Ashkenazim are strict.<ref>Mishna Brurah 316:18</ref>
===Toladot===
# While Meleches Tzad is very complex, it doesn’t appear to have any toldos. There is only one thing prohibited by this melacha-trapping.<ref> Some meforshim try to explain how some ways of trapping, done differently than in the mishkan, are indeed only toldos. See Avnei Nezer O”C Siman 195 </ref>
===Within what type of area is it considered trapping?===
# The biblical violation of [[trapping]] means to trap an animal in an area where it’s trapped to the extent that a person could catch it in one grasp (without chasing it).<ref> See Mishna 106a and Rambam Shabbat 10:20</ref> However, it’s forbidden on a rabbinic level to trap an animal even if it can still escape being caught.<Ref> Shulchan Aruch O.C. 316:1 writes that regarding birds or deer one only violates the Deoritta when one traps it into a house where one would be able to catch it, otherwise it’s only Derabbanan. </ref>

===Which animals may not be trapped?===
# The Torah-level prohibition of [[trapping]] on [[Shabbat]] applies only to an animal that people normally trap. If, however, it is a type of animal that is not normally trapped, [[trapping]] it is forbidden only rabbinically. <ref>
* The Gemara ([[Shabbat]] 106b) records a dispute between Rabanan and Rabbi Meir. Rabanan hold that there is a biblical prohibition to trap an animal that normally is trapped and there is a rabbinic prohibition to trap animals that are not usually trapped. Rabbi Meir, however, argues that both types of animals are included in the biblical prohibition. The Rambam (10:19 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:3 rule in accordance with Rabanan.
 According to Rashi 107a s.v. sh’lo l’tzorech, this petur is only when you are not trapping it to use it or something from it. See Tosfos Rid on 107b who explains how the rules of melcha sheina tzricha l’gufa apply in this context.
 Most Rishonim however think it is more of a categorical rule, because meleches tzad only applies to certain species (Tosfos 107a s.v. Shelo.). See Avnei Nezer O”C 189-7 who explains why such a limitation of the melacha exists.
 Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:33 clarifies that “normally trapped” refers to animals that are trapped for meat or hide, but animals that are trapped so that they don’t injure a person are not included in the biblical prohibition. </ref>
# Some poskim permit [[trapping]] animals that move very slowly and are easy to trap, such as a small red ant or a turtle.<ref>The Gemara ([[Shabbat]] 106b) distinguishes between a deer that is blind or sleeping and one that is lame, old, or sick. If one traps a deer in the first category, there is a biblical prohibition, because it could run away; if one traps a deer in the second category, there is a rabbinic prohibition, because it does not run away. This is codified by the Rambam (10:21 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:2. The Mishna Brurah 316:8 explains the Rambam 10:24 as saying that [[trapping]] a young animal that cannot run away is only a rabbinic prohibition.
* Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:45 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that it is permitted to trap an animal that is easy to trap and doesn’t usually run away, such as an ant or turtle. Nonetheless, one may not move them, as they are [[muktzeh]]. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that a sick animal usually can run away, so [[trapping]] it is prohibited, but an ant always is easy to trap even if it tries to hide. The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 863) agrees with this ruling but qualifies that only small red ants may be trapped, while large black ants that can move very quickly may not be trapped.
* Orchot [[Shabbat]] (vol 1, p. 420, quoting Rav Elyashiv) and The [[Shabbos]] Home (p. 339, note 4, based on the Chazon Ish) forbid [[trapping]] animals that move very slowly and are easy to trap just like it is forbidden to trap an old or sick animal.</ref>
# One is also patur, and it may even be permitted, to trap a domesticated animal which one knows will come back to his domain at a later time, even if it is currently running around and not trapped.<ref> Shulchan Aruch 316:12 </ref>
# A bee is an example of an animal which isn't usually trapped, nonetheless it is still rabbinically forbidden to trap a bee. <Ref> S”A 316:3 gives the example of a bee which isn’t usually trapped and still the prohibition to trap it is derabbanan. </ref>
# The prohibition doesn’t apply to [[trapping]] people.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (chap 27 note 119) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman who discusses this at length and seems to side with the argument that there's no [[trapping]] by people because a normal person wouldn't think of running away unless he's running away from the police but even in such a case since he's still among people he's not considered trapped. Yalkut Yosef 316:2 writes that the prohibition doesn't apply to people. see also Sh"t Avnei Nezer OC 189:22</ref>

==In the Mishkan==
# In the mishkan they would trap rams to use their skins for the curtains and the chilazon for its techeles.<ref> See Rashi 73a s.v. Hatzad es hatzvi. See also gemara 75a </ref>
==Closing the door on a pet==
# Many poskim hold that one may close the door of his house even if he owns a pet provided that the pet either is totally domesticated, it doesn’t realize that it is being confined, or if the house is large and one’s intent is to protect the house from burglary.<ref>
* The Mishnah ([[Shabbat]] 106b) states that it is a biblical prohibition to close the door of a house on a deer. The Rashba (107a s.v. Tosefta) understands the Yerushalmi as saying that it is permitted to shut the door even if a deer is inside if one’s intent is to guard his house. The Ran (38a s.v. Ha), however, argues that if one knew that the deer was inside, even if he did not intend to trap, it is a psik reisha and is forbidden. Avnei Nezer O.C. 194 defends the Rashba, but Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 4:35:13) proves from the Rama 316:3 that the halacha does not follow the Rashba.
* S”A 316:1 establishes that it is a rabbinic prohibition to confine an animal to a space even if it is not completely trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:4 explains that an animal is considered “not completely trapped” if one couldn’t grab it with one exertion. Therefore, Mishna Brurah 316:5 writes that one may close the door of a house even though a bird is inside if it is cold outside and one’s intention is not to trap the bird. He reasons that while actually [[trapping]] the bird is a rabbinic prohibition, as the bird is not completely trapped in a house, it is permitted if one does not intend to trap it. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 174) explains that the Mishna Brurah holds that a psik reisha of a rabbinic prohibition is permitted when there is a great need. Therefore, the 39 Melachos (Tzad, note 144a) says that one may close one’s door if a pet is inside as long as he is closing the door to protect against burglary or the elements and the house is large. Orchot [[Shabbat]] (p. 421) agrees for a different reason.
* Chayei Adam 30:4 writes that a domesticated animal that relaxes and submits when grabbed by its owner may be trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:57 and The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 868) agree.
* Chut HaShani (vol 1, p. 120) writes that there is a rabbinic prohibition only if the animal feels that it is being confined. It is permitted to trap an animal in an area that is so large that it doesn’t even realize it is being confined. The [[Shabbos]] Home (p. 353) agrees.</ref>
# However, one may only trap a submissive animal, not a rebellious one. <ref> Hazon Ovadia, Page 106 </ref> In any case, carrying the animal to an enclosed area is prohibited because they are muktzeh. <ref> Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 123 </ref>

==Trapping a fly in a box==
# According to Ashkenazim, it’s forbidden to close a small box with flies inside rather one should leave it a bit open or have a hole in the box. However, if the box is large enough that one wouldn’t be able to catch flies inside it, it’s permitted to close it. Additionally, if one doesn’t see any more flies in the box even if one’s not sure that there’s no flies left it’s permitted to close it.<Ref> Rama O.C. 316:1 writes that it’s forbidden to close a small box with flies inside as it’s a violation of [[trapping]] and so one should leave it ajar or have a hole as the Mishna Brurah 316:14 writes. Mishna Brurah 316:15 infers from the Rama that in a large box where one wouldn’t be able to catch the flies it is permissible. Mishna Brurah 316:16 concludes that even though some achronim argue on the Rama one should be strict unless there are no flies in sight even if one’s unsure that there’s no flies left. </ref>

==Related Pages==
[http://halachipedia.com/documents/5773/5.pdf Trapping on Shabbat]
==Links==
* Article on [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/725098/Rabbi_Josh_Flug/The_Melacha_of_Trapping_on_Shabbat The Melacha of Trapping on Shabbat] by Rabbi Josh Flug
* [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/802775/Rabbi_Michael_Taubes/_Parhsas_VaEra_Trapping_Animals_and_People_on_Shabbos_ Trapping Animals and People on Shabbos] by Rabbi Michael Taubes

==Sources==
<References/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Shochet

2024-07-28T19:44:09Z

Gsilver2:

{{Okay}}
[[File:Download.png|thumb]]
The Mishna (73a) lists ‘shocheit’ (slaughtering) as one of the 39 avot melachot on Shabbos. It is clear in the gemara and rishonim that the av melacha is not limited to ritual slaughtering per se, but actually is more broadly defined as "taking life".<ref>Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:1) states that not only is slaughtering part of this melacha, but actually any taking of a life (e.g. beating, stabbing, etc.) of an animal, bird, fish, or insect, is included in this melacha. However, he then remarks that strangling a living creature until it dies is only a toldah of the melacha, but not the av melacha itself. This is somewhat surprising, as one would have assumed that if the definition of the melacha is "taking life" then strangling would have been part of the av itself, and not merely a toldah. Perhaps strangling is different because it is merely preventing the creature from breathing and is thus a less direct form of killing, and is seen as a sort of grama. The Mirkevet Hamishna suggets that perhaps strangling is different because really the definition of the melacha is "removing blood", and strangling does not involve any removal of blood. Regardless, it is clear that the melacha is much more expansive than simply "slaughtering". </ref>

== Killing Harmful Creatures ==

# Categories
## Whether or not one may kill a creature on shabbat depends on how harmful it is:
### If there's a chance it will kill you, then you can kill it even if it is not chasing you.<ref>Generallly speaking, we know that pikuach nefesh is a prime value in Judaism, and that it pushes off most mitzvot, including shabbat. Thus one may violate shabbat in order to save a life, or even if it's only a safek whether it will save a life (see gemara in Yoma 85b). The gemara in shabbat essentially applies this principle to the prohibition of killing creatures on shabbat, as we shall see.

*The gemara 121b cites Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi as holding that all מזיקין (lit: damagers) may be killed on shabbat. The gemara raises an objection to this from a beraita which states that only 5 particularly harmful creatures may be killed on shabbat. There is a machlokes rishonim how the gemara answers this question. Rashi thinks that the beraita is talking about when the creature is not chasing you, and the beraita holds like the position of rebbe shimon, that a melacha not done for its intended purpose (e.g. killing an animal just because you don't want it to harm you, but not because you want the hide) is only rabbinically prohibited. Thus one may kill these creatures even if they aren't chasing you, since anyways killing them is only an isur drabanan, and chazal weren't gozer in a case when it might cause harm. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when a harmful creature is chasing you, and so it's permitted to kill it because of pikuach nefesh. Thus, according to Rashi, when one is being chased by a creature that might kill, it is certainly permitted to kill it. And according to Rebbe Shimon (who most rishonim pasken like), it will be permitted to kill one of the five harmful creatures even if it is not chasing you. The Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:4) seems to understand that this list of 5 was not exhaustive, but rather just were examples of creatures that could kill.

*Tosfot disagrees, and thinks that the beraita can even accord with the position of rebbe yehudah - that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is still biblically forbidden - but it's talking about when the animal is chasing you. Since the animal is chasing you, and it's one of the five very harmful creatures, it is pikuach nefesh and you can kill it. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when the animal is not chasing you, but nonetheless it is permitted to kill it because he's holding like rebbe shimon (with respect to a melacha not done for its intended purpose). Thus, according to tosfot too, it will come out that when an animal that can kill is chasing you, you may kill it, and even if it is not chasing you, you can kill it according to Rebbe Shimon.

*Shulchan Aruch 316:10 states that any animal that has the potential to kill may be killed on shabbat even if it is not chasing you. It is unclear whether he reads the gemara like Rashi or like Tosfot, as this halacha can fit with either position. The Be'er Hagola says that he holds like Tosfot, and thus this is the statement of Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi. The Biur Hagra 316:25 thinks he learns like Rashi (and like the Rambam that the list of 5 was not exhaustive), in which case this is the statement of the beraita. </ref>
### If it is damaging but can't kill<ref>Examples of these creatures that the Shulchan Aruch 316:10 gives include snakes and scorpions. Presumably, he is referring to snakes and scorpions with non-deadly stings or bites.</ref>, then you can kill it if it's chasing you,<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:10. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that since we pasken like Rebbe Shimon (that melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa is patur), killing a harmful creature to prevent it from damaging you is only an isur drabanan. Here, since there's a good chance it will damage you (since it's chasing you), chazal did not impose their gezeira and so we are lenient with this isur drabanan, and allow one to kill the creature. [as an aside, the Rambam seems to cite this halacha as well, despite the fact that he paskens like Rebbe Yehudah regarding melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. How can this be? Why would we allow an isur deorayta if there is no concern of pikuach nefesh?! The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that when the Rambam uses the phrase "שאר מזיקין" (lit: other damagers), he is still referring to creatures which have the potential to kill, just less so. Thus the reason for the leniency to kill them according to him is because of pikuach nefesh. However, we who hold like Rebbe Shimon will permit killing damaging creatures even if we know that they can't kill].</ref> but otherwise not (although there is a special leniency that one may kill it while walking).<ref>The gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill a snake in their normal course of walking (דורסו לפי תומו). Rashi s.v. dilma seems to understand that this leniency is only if one doesn't have intention to kill it. However, most rishonim (see Ran) disagree and hold that even if one has intention to kill the snake, one may do so, since killing it is only an isur drabanan (according to Rebbe Shimon that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is only rabbinically forbidden), and here to the onlooker it appears like an accident. The Shulchan Aruch 316:10 paskens like these rishonim, and allows one to step on damaging creatures while walking even with intention to kill them. </ref>
### If it is painful but not damaging, then you can never kill it.<ref>The Tur 316 states that if one is being bitten by a פרעוש (mosquito) one may trap it to prevent it from continuing to bite, but one may not kill it. The Beit Yosef explains that the Tur understood the gemara in shabbat 107b (which states that one may not kill a par'ush) to be referring to even when being bitten. Thus, when the gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill "מזיקין" (damaging creatures) when being chased (and certainly when they are actually biting you), this was only referring to creatures that are very damaging (but just not lethal). The Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that one may not kill a par'ush even if it is in the act of biting you. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 assumes that any small insect will have the same din as a par'ush, and will be asur to kill even if it is biting you (since there is not so much pain). Rather, must simply shoo them away.</ref>
# Practical Examples
## Mosquito, fly, gnat, ant, spider, etc. - may never be killed on shabbat<ref>Mishna Brurah 316:46</ref>
## Bee, wasp, hornet, etc. - some poskim treat these like gnats (and so may never be killed, even if stinging you),<ref>The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a gnat. Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.</ref> while others treat them like snakes (so may be killed if chasing you).<ref>Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to kill it if being chased. </ref>

== Killing Lice ==

# The gemara defines the type of creature that one may not kill on shabbat to be one which procreates via sexual reproduction.<ref>The gemara shabbat 107b cites a beraita in which rebbe eliezer holds that one who kills a "כינה" (lit: louse) on shabbat is considered as if he killed a camel (i.e. it is prohibited). However, the gemara continues that the rabanan disagree and hold that one may kill a louse on shabbat. The gemara explains that the root of this debate is how to define the type of creature which we are commanded not to kill on shabbat. Everyone agrees that we learn from what was done in the preparations of the mishkan; in the mishkan they used to kill the "אילים" (lit: rams) for the purpose of using the hides. Rebbe Eliezer says that the key feature of these rams was simply that they were alive, and so the melacha should be applicable to any live creature. The rabanan argue that the key feature of these rams was that they reproduced via sexual reproduction (פרו ורבו), and so the melacha should only be applicable to those creatures which do likewise. [as an aside, it is interesting to consider why this feature is deemed important by the rabanan. Presumably they think that part of the definition of life is the ability to procreate and pass on life to the next generation, and as such, only creatures with this capability can truly be defined as "alive"].</ref> It therefore excludes killing lice from the melacha of shocheit.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that it is permitted to kill a כינה (louse) on shabbat. </ref>
# Nowadays
## Today, lice seemingly do not spontaneously generate but rather sexually reproduce. Are we still entitled to rely upon the leniency codified in the gemara and Shulchan Aruch?
## Some poskim say that one may still rely upon this leniency<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah (316:38 footnote 72) cites from Rav Dessler (Michtav M'eliyahu V4 pg 355 ft 4) that even though the מציאות (lit: realia) that we perceive differs from that which chazal understood when they established the halacha, this doesn't change anything. We may still rely upon the halacha as they defined it. Perhaps chazal also knew that lice really did sexually procreate, but since this is invisible to the naked eye, chazal treated them as if they do not (thus chazal were not wrong in their assessment of the situation, but were merely saying something different than their words might imply).</ref>, while others are strict.<ref>The Pachad Yitzchak (Tzeida pg 21b), a work written by the late-17th-century Italian sage Yitzchak Lampronti, suggests that actually nowadays one should be strict and refrain from killing lice on shabbat, given that we observe that they do sexually procreate. The halacha as defined by chazal is that one may not kill creatures which sexually procreate, and therefore these creatures are included. There was never a special leniency for lice per se, but rather they just fit into a category of leniency. The Dirshu footnote cites Rav Elyashiv (orchot shabbat V1 Ch14 footnote 47) as also being strict.</ref>

== Chovel (lit: wounding) ==

# Background
## The Mishna (107a) teaches that one who is chovel (causes a wound) in a person or animal has violated a melacha on Shabbat.
## Which av melacha is it?<ref>In hilchot shabbat we distinguish between an "av melacha" (lit: parent melacha) and a "toldah" (lit: offspring) of a melacha. There are 39 categories of forbidden melacha, and each category can contain many offshoots that are similar to the parent (similar enough to be considered a toldah but different enough to not be considered the av itself). The toldah, while conceptually distinct from the av, is still prohibited biblically. See Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:1-6 for a clear explanation of the difference between an av melacha and a toldah. For example, the av melacha of tochein (lit: grinding) refers to grinding up wheat into flour. A toldah of tochein is chopping up vegetables into small pieces. This is distinct from the av in its GOAL (making flour vs. having smaller veggies to make eating them easier), but similar to the av in its ACTION (in both cases you take a big item and turn it into many small items).</ref>
### The Rambam<ref>Hilchot Shabbat 8:7</ref> writes that one who is chovel has violated [[dosh]] (threshing).<ref>This is because when a wound is caused, blood is removed from a person’s capillaries, which is similar to the threshing process (in which the kernel is removed from the husk). One interesting question on this shita is that the Rambam himself paskens that אין דישה אלא בגדולי קרקע (the melacha of threshing is only applicable on that which grows from the ground). Seemingly then, there should be no problem of dosh when causing a wound on an animal, because animals don't grow in the ground! Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 8:7) cites this question from the Ramach, and doesn't give an answer. The Maggid Mishna answers that perhaps the Rambam thinks that animals are in fact considered to "grow in the ground" since they are sustained from plants which grow in the ground. Rav Avraham ben Harambam (birkat avraham hilchot shabbat 8:7) answers that there is a difference between the av melacha and the tolda. The requirement of gidulei karka is only for the av melacha. But a tolda is merely an offshoot of the melacha, and not the melacha itself, and hence it isn't subject to the standards of the av melacha. The fact that it is different from the av means that it is entitled to be different. Hence, choveil, despite being a tolda of dosh, is applicable even to that which does not grow in the ground.</ref>
### Tosafot<ref>Shabbat 75a s.v. ki</ref> writes that one is liable for [[shocheit]].<ref>Tosfot explains that the pasuk (devarim 12:23) states “ki hadam hu hanefesh” (lit: the blood is the soul), and so it follows that one who causes a wound and removes blood in essence removes a bit of the soul, which is equivalent to the melacha of shocheit. </ref>
### Rashi<ref>Shabbat 107a s.v. v'hachoveil</ref> cites an opinion that one who hits an animal and causes it to bruise is considered to have dyed the hide, thereby violating the melacha of [[tzoveah]].<ref>See Tosfot ketubot 5b s.v. dam, who asks many questions on Rashi. He cites many examples of cases in which seemingly one is chayav for choveil despite not causing any dyeing, but rather just removing blood. Pri megadim (mishbetzot zahav 316:5) suggests that perhaps Rashi is just coming to explain why causing a black-and-blue (without causing bleeding) is choveil, but that Rashi agrees to Tosfot that if one causes bleeding then one has violated the melacha of shocheit. </ref>
## What's the Nafka Minah (practical ramification)?
### How much blood needs to be removed to be chayav?<ref>Rambam (hilchot shabbat 8:7) writes that since choveil is a toldah of dosh, it has the same "shiur" (minimum amount) as dosh, which is a grogeres (lit: fig). The Maggid Mishna there suggests that according to Tosfot (choveil is a toldah of shocheit) it should follow that there's no minimum shiur to violate it, since shocheit has no minimum shiur. The Mishna Brurah 316:29 (and shaar hatziyon 316:43) accepts this reasoning. </ref>
### Is it possible to violate chovel on a dead creature?<ref>Biur Halacha (316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil) suggests that if you hold like the Rambam that choveil is a toldah of dosh, then it should be relevant even when removing the blood of a dead creature, since at the end of the day you are still removing blood. However, if you hold like Tosfot that choveil is a toldah of shocheit, then once the animal is dead it cannot be killed again, and thus removing the blood should be permitted. </ref>
### What about removing unwanted blood?<ref>Biur Halacha (316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil) discusses a case of bloodletting for health purposes, in which one removes the blood but then the blood goes to waste. If choveil is a toldah of shocheit, then the fact that the blood goes to waste is irrelevant, as one has still removed some of the life, and thereby violated choveil. However, if choveil is a toldah of dosh then it follows that it is only considered "צריכה לגופה" (done for the purpose of the melacha) if you remove the blood because you want the blood, just like one who threshes removes the kernel from the husk because they want the kernel (and not because they want an empty husk). Thus, according to the Rambam, bloodletting would be considered a melacha that is not done for the purpose of the melacha [it happens to be that the Rambam paskens like Rebbe Yehudah that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is still biblically forbidden, so he would still hold that bloodletting is biblically forbidden despite its being eina tzricha l'gufa].</ref>
## The Shulchan Aruch (316:8) does not take a firm stance on whether to rule in accordance with the Rambam or Tosafos.<ref>It seems unanimous amongst the poskim to reject Rashi, since most of the time one isn't interested in dying the hide and so would not be chayav for tzoveah. However, if indeed one was interested in dying the hide, and dyed the requisite amount to violate the melacha of tzove'ah, then they would be chayav for this melacha (see Biur Halacha 316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil). </ref>
### However, the commentaries on Shulchan Aruch appear to hold like Tosafot.<ref>Magen Avraham 316:8 and Mishna Brurah 316:29. Beit Yosef 316:8 also appears to side with Tosafot.</ref>
# Practical Example
## Blood test
### One who draws blood for a blood test wants the blood that they are removing (in contrast to bloodletting discussed above), and this certainly would violate chovel if performed by a Jew, except in cases of pikuach nefesh
### There is more room to be lenient to have the blood test administered by a non-Jew for a Jew who is sick (choleh she'ein bo sakana), since we generally permit amira l'akum for such a person.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 328:17. Mishna Brurah 328:47 explains that a non-Jew may even perform biblical melacha on behalf of a Jew who is sick (but not in danger of dying).</ref>
## Injection
### If a needle must enter a person’s skin but no blood actually needs to be removed for the procedure to be effective, then there may be more room to be lenient to administer such a procedure for a choleh shein bo skana.<ref name="ftn186"> Here there is no issue of shocheit, because blood may not come out, and even if blood certainly will come out, one is not interested in that blood at all and so this would be a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei (which is rabbinically prohibited according to most poskim). There is also a rabbinic issue of creating a hole (Ketubot 5b, Shabbos 107a, Rambam Shabbos 23:1). For a choleh shein bo sakana, these two issues may perhaps be permitted (S”A 328:17).</ref>
### It is certainly still preferable to have the injection administered by a non-Jew.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 328:17 paskens explicitly that we permit amira l'akum for a choleh she'ein bo sakana.</ref>
## All doctors should consult their respective rabbanim for guidance on how to deal with these and similar questions that relate to their field of work.

==Sources==
<references/>

[[Category:Orach Chaim]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Shochet

2024-07-28T14:20:00Z

Gsilver2:

{{Okay}}
The Mishna (73a) lists ‘shocheit’ (slaughtering) as one of the 39 avot melachot on Shabbos. It is clear in the gemara and rishonim that the av melacha is not limited to ritual slaughtering per se, but actually includes killing more broadly.<ref>Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:1) states that not only is slaughtering part of this melacha, but actually any taking of a life (e.g. beating, stabbing, etc.) of an animal, bird, fish, or insect, is included in this melacha. However, he then remarks that strangling a living creature until it dies is only a toldah of the melacha, but not the av melacha itself. This is somewhat surprising, as one would have assumed that if the definition of the melacha is "taking life" then strangling would have been part of the av itself, and not merely a toldah. Perhaps strangling is different because it is merely preventing the creature from breathing and is thus a less direct form of killing, and is seen as a sort of grama. The Mirkevet Hamishna suggets that perhaps strangling is different because really the definition of the melacha is "removing blood", and strangling does not involve any removal of blood. Regardless, it is clear that the melacha is much more expansive than simply "slaughtering". </ref>

== Killing Harmful Creatures ==

# Categories
## Whether or not one may kill a creature on shabbat depends on how harmful it is:
### If there's a chance it will kill you, then you can kill it even if it is not chasing you.<ref>Generallly speaking, we know that pikuach nefesh is a prime value in Judaism, and that it pushes off most mitzvot, including shabbat. Thus one may violate shabbat in order to save a life, or even if it's only a safek whether it will save a life (see gemara in Yoma 85b). The gemara in shabbat essentially applies this principle to the prohibition of killing creatures on shabbat, as we shall see.

*The gemara 121b cites Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi as holding that all מזיקין (lit: damagers) may be killed on shabbat. The gemara raises an objection to this from a beraita which states that only 5 particularly harmful creatures may be killed on shabbat. There is a machlokes rishonim how the gemara answers this question. Rashi thinks that the beraita is talking about when the creature is not chasing you, and the beraita holds like the position of rebbe shimon, that a melacha not done for its intended purpose (e.g. killing an animal just because you don't want it to harm you, but not because you want the hide) is only rabbinically prohibited. Thus one may kill these creatures even if they aren't chasing you, since anyways killing them is only an isur drabanan, and chazal weren't gozer in a case when it might cause harm. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when a harmful creature is chasing you, and so it's permitted to kill it because of pikuach nefesh. Thus, according to Rashi, when one is being chased by a creature that might kill, it is certainly permitted to kill it. And according to Rebbe Shimon (who most rishonim pasken like), it will be permitted to kill one of the five harmful creatures even if it is not chasing you. The Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:4) seems to understand that this list of 5 was not exhaustive, but rather just were examples of creatures that could kill.

*Tosfot disagrees, and thinks that the beraita can even accord with the position of rebbe yehudah - that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is still biblically forbidden - but it's talking about when the animal is chasing you. Since the animal is chasing you, and it's one of the five very harmful creatures, it is pikuach nefesh and you can kill it. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when the animal is not chasing you, but nonetheless it is permitted to kill it because he's holding like rebbe shimon (with respect to a melacha not done for its intended purpose). Thus, according to tosfot too, it will come out that when an animal that can kill is chasing you, you may kill it, and even if it is not chasing you, you can kill it according to Rebbe Shimon.

*Shulchan Aruch 316:10 states that any animal that has the potential to kill may be killed on shabbat even if it is not chasing you. It is unclear whether he reads the gemara like Rashi or like Tosfot, as this halacha can fit with either position. The Be'er Hagola says that he holds like Tosfot, and thus this is the statement of Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi. The Biur Hagra 316:25 thinks he learns like Rashi (and like the Rambam that the list of 5 was not exhaustive), in which case this is the statement of the beraita. </ref>
### If it is damaging but can't kill<ref>Examples of these creatures that the Shulchan Aruch 316:10 gives include snakes and scorpions. Presumably, he is referring to snakes and scorpions with non-deadly stings or bites.</ref>, then you can kill it if it's chasing you,<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:10. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that since we pasken like Rebbe Shimon (that melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa is patur), killing a harmful creature to prevent it from damaging you is only an isur drabanan. Here, since there's a good chance it will damage you (since it's chasing you), chazal did not impose their gezeira and so we are lenient with this isur drabanan, and allow one to kill the creature. [as an aside, the Rambam seems to cite this halacha as well, despite the fact that he paskens like Rebbe Yehudah regarding melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. How can this be? Why would we allow an isur deorayta if there is no concern of pikuach nefesh?! The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that when the Rambam uses the phrase "שאר מזיקין" (lit: other damagers), he is still referring to creatures which have the potential to kill, just less so. Thus the reason for the leniency to kill them according to him is because of pikuach nefesh. However, we who hold like Rebbe Shimon will permit killing damaging creatures even if we know that they can't kill].</ref> but otherwise not (although there is a special leniency that one may kill it while walking).<ref>The gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill a snake in their normal course of walking (דורסו לפי תומו). Rashi s.v. dilma seems to understand that this leniency is only if one doesn't have intention to kill it. However, most rishonim (see Ran) disagree and hold that even if one has intention to kill the snake, one may do so, since killing it is only an isur drabanan (according to Rebbe Shimon that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is only rabbinically forbidden), and here to the onlooker it appears like an accident. The Shulchan Aruch 316:10 paskens like these rishonim, and allows one to step on damaging creatures while walking even with intention to kill them. </ref>
### If it is painful but not damaging, then you can never kill it.<ref>The Tur 316 states that if one is being bitten by a פרעוש (mosquito) one may trap it to prevent it from continuing to bite, but one may not kill it. The Beit Yosef explains that the Tur understood the gemara in shabbat 107b (which states that one may not kill a par'ush) to be referring to even when being bitten. Thus, when the gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill "מזיקין" (damaging creatures) when being chased (and certainly when they are actually biting you), this was only referring to creatures that are very damaging (but just not lethal). The Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that one may not kill a par'ush even if it is in the act of biting you. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 assumes that any small insect will have the same din as a par'ush, and will be asur to kill even if it is biting you (since there is not so much pain). Rather, must simply shoo them away.</ref>
# Practical Examples
## Mosquito, fly, gnat, ant, spider, etc. - may never be killed on shabbat<ref>Mishna Brurah 316:46</ref>
## Bee, wasp, hornet, etc. - some poskim treat these like gnats (and so may never be killed, even if stinging you),<ref>The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a gnat. Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.</ref> while others treat them like snakes (so may be killed if chasing you).<ref>Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to kill it if being chased. </ref>

== Killing Lice ==

# The gemara defines the type of creature that one may not kill on shabbat to be one which procreates via sexual reproduction.<ref>The gemara shabbat 107b cites a beraita in which rebbe eliezer holds that one who kills a "כינה" (lit: louse) on shabbat is considered as if he killed a camel (i.e. it is prohibited). However, the gemara continues that the rabanan disagree and hold that one may kill a louse on shabbat. The gemara explains that the root of this debate is how to define the type of creature which we are commanded not to kill on shabbat. Everyone agrees that we learn from what was done in the preparations of the mishkan; in the mishkan they used to kill the "אילים" (lit: rams) for the purpose of using the hides. Rebbe Eliezer says that the key feature of these rams was simply that they were alive, and so the melacha should be applicable to any live creature. The rabanan argue that the key feature of these rams was that they reproduced via sexual reproduction (פרו ורבו), and so the melacha should only be applicable to those creatures which do likewise. [as an aside, it is interesting to consider why this feature is deemed important by the rabanan. Presumably they think that part of the definition of life is the ability to procreate and pass on life to the next generation, and as such, only creatures with this capability can truly be defined as "alive"].</ref> It therefore excludes killing lice from the melacha of shocheit.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that it is permitted to kill a כינה (louse) on shabbat. </ref>
# Nowadays
## Today, lice seemingly do not spontaneously generate but rather sexually reproduce. Are we still entitled to rely upon the leniency codified in the gemara and Shulchan Aruch?
## Some poskim say that one may still rely upon this leniency<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah (316:38 footnote 72) cites from Rav Dessler (Michtav M'eliyahu V4 pg 355 ft 4) that even though the מציאות (lit: realia) that we perceive differs from that which chazal understood when they established the halacha, this doesn't change anything. We may still rely upon the halacha as they defined it. Perhaps chazal also knew that lice really did sexually procreate, but since this is invisible to the naked eye, chazal treated them as if they do not (thus chazal were not wrong in their assessment of the situation, but were merely saying something different than their words might imply).</ref>, while others are strict.<ref>The Pachad Yitzchak (Tzeida pg 21b), a work written by the late-17th-century Italian sage Yitzchak Lampronti, suggests that actually nowadays one should be strict and refrain from killing lice on shabbat, given that we observe that they do sexually procreate. The halacha as defined by chazal is that one may not kill creatures which sexually procreate, and therefore these creatures are included. There was never a special leniency for lice per se, but rather they just fit into a category of leniency. The Dirshu footnote cites Rav Elyashiv (orchot shabbat V1 Ch14 footnote 47) as also being strict.</ref>

== Chovel (lit: wounding) ==

# Background
## The Mishna (107a) teaches that one who is chovel (causes a wound) in a person or animal has violated a melacha on Shabbat.
## Which av melacha is it?<ref>In hilchot shabbat we distinguish between an "av melacha" (lit: parent melacha) and a "toldah" (lit: offspring) of a melacha. There are 39 categories of forbidden melacha, and each category can contain many offshoots that are similar to the parent (similar enough to be considered a toldah but different enough to not be considered the av itself). The toldah, while conceptually distinct from the av, is still prohibited biblically. See Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:1-6 for a clear explanation of the difference between an av melacha and a toldah. For example, the av melacha of tochein (lit: grinding) refers to grinding up wheat into flour. A toldah of tochein is chopping up vegetables into small pieces. This is distinct from the av in its GOAL (making flour vs. having smaller veggies to make eating them easier), but similar to the av in its ACTION (in both cases you take a big item and turn it into many small items).</ref>
### The Rambam<ref>Hilchot Shabbat 8:7</ref> writes that one who is chovel has violated [[dosh]] (threshing).<ref>This is because when a wound is caused, blood is removed from a person’s capillaries, which is similar to the threshing process (in which the kernel is removed from the husk). One interesting question on this shita is that the Rambam himself paskens that אין דישה אלא בגדולי קרקע (the melacha of threshing is only applicable on that which grows from the ground). Seemingly then, there should be no problem of dosh when causing a wound on an animal, because animals don't grow in the ground! Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 8:7) cites this question from the Ramach, and doesn't give an answer. The Maggid Mishna answers that perhaps the Rambam thinks that animals are in fact considered to "grow in the ground" since they are sustained from plants which grow in the ground. Rav Avraham ben Harambam (birkat avraham hilchot shabbat 8:7) answers that there is a difference between the av melacha and the tolda. The requirement of gidulei karka is only for the av melacha. But a tolda is merely an offshoot of the melacha, and not the melacha itself, and hence it isn't subject to the standards of the av melacha. The fact that it is different from the av means that it is entitled to be different. Hence, choveil, despite being a tolda of dosh, is applicable even to that which does not grow in the ground.</ref>
### Tosafot<ref>Shabbat 75a s.v. ki</ref> writes that one is liable for [[shocheit]].<ref>Tosfot explains that the pasuk (devarim 12:23) states “ki hadam hu hanefesh” (lit: the blood is the soul), and so it follows that one who causes a wound and removes blood in essence removes a bit of the soul, which is equivalent to the melacha of shocheit. </ref>
### Rashi<ref>Shabbat 107a s.v. v'hachoveil</ref> cites an opinion that one who hits an animal and causes it to bruise is considered to have dyed the hide, thereby violating the melacha of [[tzoveah]].<ref>See Tosfot ketubot 5b s.v. dam, who asks many questions on Rashi. He cites many examples of cases in which seemingly one is chayav for choveil despite not causing any dyeing, but rather just removing blood. Pri megadim (mishbetzot zahav 316:5) suggests that perhaps Rashi is just coming to explain why causing a black-and-blue (without causing bleeding) is choveil, but that Rashi agrees to Tosfot that if one causes bleeding then one has violated the melacha of shocheit. </ref>
## What's the Nafka Minah (practical ramification)?
### How much blood needs to be removed to be chayav?<ref>Rambam (hilchot shabbat 8:7) writes that since choveil is a toldah of dosh, it has the same "shiur" (minimum amount) as dosh, which is a grogeres (lit: fig). The Maggid Mishna there suggests that according to Tosfot (choveil is a toldah of shocheit) it should follow that there's no minimum shiur to violate it, since shocheit has no minimum shiur. The Mishna Brurah 316:29 (and shaar hatziyon 316:43) accepts this reasoning. </ref>
### Is it possible to violate chovel on a dead creature?<ref>Biur Halacha (316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil) suggests that if you hold like the Rambam that choveil is a toldah of dosh, then it should be relevant even when removing the blood of a dead creature, since at the end of the day you are still removing blood. However, if you hold like Tosfot that choveil is a toldah of shocheit, then once the animal is dead it cannot be killed again, and thus removing the blood should be permitted. </ref>
### What about removing unwanted blood?<ref>Biur Halacha (316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil) discusses a case of bloodletting for health purposes, in which one removes the blood but then the blood goes to waste. If choveil is a toldah of shocheit, then the fact that the blood goes to waste is irrelevant, as one has still removed some of the life, and thereby violated choveil. However, if choveil is a toldah of dosh then it follows that it is only considered "צריכה לגופה" (done for the purpose of the melacha) if you remove the blood because you want the blood, just like one who threshes removes the kernel from the husk because they want the kernel (and not because they want an empty husk). Thus, according to the Rambam, bloodletting would be considered a melacha that is not done for the purpose of the melacha [it happens to be that the Rambam paskens like Rebbe Yehudah that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is still biblically forbidden, so he would still hold that bloodletting is biblically forbidden despite its being eina tzricha l'gufa].</ref>
## The Shulchan Aruch (316:8) does not take a firm stance on whether to rule in accordance with the Rambam or Tosafos.<ref>It seems unanimous amongst the poskim to reject Rashi, since most of the time one isn't interested in dying the hide and so would not be chayav for tzoveah. However, if indeed one was interested in dying the hide, and dyed the requisite amount to violate the melacha of tzove'ah, then they would be chayav for this melacha (see Biur Halacha 316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil). </ref>
### However, the commentaries on Shulchan Aruch appear to hold like Tosafot.<ref>Magen Avraham 316:8 and Mishna Brurah 316:29. Beit Yosef 316:8 also appears to side with Tosafot.</ref>
# Practical Example
## Blood test
### One who draws blood for a blood test wants the blood that they are removing (in contrast to bloodletting discussed above), and this certainly would violate chovel if performed by a Jew, except in cases of pikuach nefesh
### There is more room to be lenient to have the blood test administered by a non-Jew for a Jew who is sick (choleh she'ein bo sakana), since we generally permit amira l'akum for such a person.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 328:17. Mishna Brurah 328:47 explains that a non-Jew may even perform biblical melacha on behalf of a Jew who is sick (but not in danger of dying).</ref>
## Injection
### If a needle must enter a person’s skin but no blood actually needs to be removed for the procedure to be effective, then there may be more room to be lenient to administer such a procedure for a choleh shein bo skana.<ref name="ftn186"> Here there is no issue of shocheit, because blood may not come out, and even if blood certainly will come out, one is not interested in that blood at all and so this would be a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei (which is rabbinically prohibited according to most poskim). There is also a rabbinic issue of creating a hole (Ketubot 5b, Shabbos 107a, Rambam Shabbos 23:1). For a choleh shein bo sakana, these two issues may perhaps be permitted (S”A 328:17).</ref>
### It is certainly still preferable to have the injection administered by a non-Jew.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 328:17 paskens explicitly that we permit amira l'akum for a choleh she'ein bo sakana.</ref>
## All doctors should consult their respective rabbanim for guidance on how to deal with these and similar questions that relate to their field of work.

==Sources==
<references/>

[[Category:Orach Chaim]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Shochet

2024-07-28T14:19:10Z

Gsilver2: /* Killing Harmful Creatures */

{{Okay}}
The Mishna (73a) lists ‘shocheit’ (slaughtering) as one of the 39 avot melachot on Shabbos. It is clear in the gemara and rishonim that the av melacha is not limited to ritual slaughtering per se, but actually includes killing more broadly.<ref>Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:1) states that not only is slaughtering part of this melacha, but actually any taking of a life (e.g. beating, stabbing, etc.) of an animal, bird, fish, or insect, is included in this melacha. However, he then remarks that strangling a living creature until it dies is only a toldah of the melacha, but not the av melacha itself. This is somewhat surprising, as one would have assumed that if the definition of the melacha is "taking life" then strangling would have been part of the av itself, and not merely a toldah. Perhaps strangling is different because it is merely preventing the creature from breathing and is thus a less direct form of killing, and is seen as a sort of grama. The Mirkevet Hamishna suggets that perhaps strangling is different because really the definition of the melacha is "removing blood", and strangling does not involve any removal of blood. Regardless, it is clear that the melacha is much more expansive than simply "slaughtering". </ref>

== Killing Harmful Creatures ==

# Categories
## Whether or not one may kill a creature on shabbat depends on how harmful it is:
### If there's a chance it will kill you, then you can kill it even if it is not chasing you.<ref>Generallly speaking, we know that pikuach nefesh is a prime value in Judaism, and that it pushes off most mitzvot, including shabbat. Thus one may violate shabbat in order to save a life, or even if it's only a safek whether it will save a life (see gemara in Yoma 85b). The gemara in shabbat essentially applies this principle to the prohibition of killing creatures on shabbat, as we shall see.

*The gemara 121b cites Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi as holding that all מזיקין (lit: damagers) may be killed on shabbat. The gemara raises an objection to this from a beraita which states that only 5 particularly harmful creatures may be killed on shabbat. There is a machlokes rishonim how the gemara answers this question. Rashi thinks that the beraita is talking about when the creature is not chasing you, and the beraita holds like the position of rebbe shimon, that a melacha not done for its intended purpose (e.g. killing an animal just because you don't want it to harm you, but not because you want the hide) is only rabbinically prohibited. Thus one may kill these creatures even if they aren't chasing you, since anyways killing them is only an isur drabanan, and chazal weren't gozer in a case when it might cause harm. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when a harmful creature is chasing you, and so it's permitted to kill it because of pikuach nefesh. Thus, according to Rashi, when one is being chased by a creature that might kill, it is certainly permitted to kill it. And according to Rebbe Shimon (who most rishonim pasken like), it will be permitted to kill one of the five harmful creatures even if it is not chasing you. The Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:4) seems to understand that this list of 5 was not exhaustive, but rather just were examples of creatures that could kill.

*Tosfot disagrees, and thinks that the beraita can even accord with the position of rebbe yehudah - that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is still biblically forbidden - but it's talking about when the animal is chasing you. Since the animal is chasing you, and it's one of the five very harmful creatures, it is pikuach nefesh and you can kill it. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when the animal is not chasing you, but nonetheless it is permitted to kill it because he's holding like rebbe shimon (with respect to a melacha not done for its intended purpose). Thus, according to tosfot too, it will come out that when an animal that can kill is chasing you, you may kill it, and even if it is not chasing you, you can kill it according to Rebbe Shimon.

*Shulchan Aruch 316:10 states that any animal that has the potential to kill may be killed on shabbat even if it is not chasing you. It is unclear whether he reads the gemara like Rashi or like Tosfot, as this halacha can fit with either position. The Be'er Hagola says that he holds like Tosfot, and thus this is the statement of Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi. The Biur Hagra 316:25 thinks he learns like Rashi (and like the Rambam that the list of 5 was not exhaustive), in which case this is the statement of the beraita. </ref>
### If it is damaging but can't kill<ref>Examples of these creatures that the Shulchan Aruch 316:10 gives include snakes and scorpions. Presumably, he is referring to snakes and scorpions with non-deadly stings or bites.</ref>, then you can kill it if it's chasing you,<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:10. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that since we pasken like Rebbe Shimon (that melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa is patur), killing a harmful creature to prevent it from damaging you is only an isur drabanan. Here, since there's a good chance it will damage you (since it's chasing you), chazal did not impose their gezeira and so we are lenient with this isur drabanan, and allow one to kill the creature. [as an aside, the Rambam seems to cite this halacha as well, despite the fact that he paskens like Rebbe Yehudah regarding melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. How can this be? Why would we allow an isur deorayta if there is no concern of pikuach nefesh?! The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that when the Rambam uses the phrase "שאר מזיקין" (lit: other damagers), he is still referring to creatures which have the potential to kill, just less so. Thus the reason for the leniency to kill them according to him is because of pikuach nefesh. However, we who hold like Rebbe Shimon will permit killing damaging creatures even if we know that they can't kill].</ref> but otherwise not (although there is a special leniency that one may kill it while walking).<ref>The gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill a snake in their normal course of walking (דורסו לפי תומו). Rashi s.v. dilma seems to understand that this leniency is only if one doesn't have intention to kill it. However, most rishonim (see Ran) disagree and hold that even if one has intention to kill the snake, one may do so, since killing it is only an isur drabanan (according to Rebbe Shimon that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is only rabbinically forbidden), and here to the onlooker it appears like an accident. The Shulchan Aruch 316:10 paskens like these rishonim, and allows one to step on damaging creatures while walking even with intention to kill them. </ref>
### If it is painful but not damaging, then you can never kill it.<ref>The Tur 316 states that if one is being bitten by a פרעוש (mosquito) one may trap it to prevent it from continuing to bite, but one may not kill it. The Beit Yosef explains that the Tur understood the gemara in shabbat 107b (which states that one may not kill a par'ush) to be referring to even when being bitten. Thus, when the gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill "מזיקין" (damaging creatures) when being chased (and certainly when they are actually biting you), this was only referring to creatures that are very damaging (but just not lethal). The Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that one may not kill a par'ush even if it is in the act of biting you. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 assumes that any small insect will have the same din as a par'ush, and will be asur to kill even if it is biting you (since there is not so much pain). Rather, must simply shoo them away.</ref>
# Practical Examples
## Mosquito, fly, gnat, ant, spider, etc. - may never be killed on shabbat<ref>Mishna Brurah 316:46</ref>
## Bee, wasp, hornet, etc. - some poskim treat these like gnats (and so may never be killed, even if stinging you),<ref>The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a gnat. Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.</ref> while others treat them like snakes (so may be killed if chasing you).<ref>Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to kill it if being chased. </ref>

== Killing Lice ==

# The gemara defines the type of creature that one may not kill on shabbat to be one which procreates via sexual reproduction.<ref>The gemara shabbat 107b cites a beraita in which rebbe eliezer holds that one who kills a "כינה" (lit: louse) on shabbat is considered as if he killed a camel (i.e. it is prohibited). However, the gemara continues that the rabanan disagree and hold that one may kill a louse on shabbat. The gemara explains that the root of this debate is how to define the type of creature which we are commanded not to kill on shabbat. Everyone agrees that we learn from what was done in the preparations of the mishkan; in the mishkan they used to kill the "אילים" (lit: rams) for the purpose of using the hides. Rebbe Eliezer says that the key feature of these rams was simply that they were alive, and so the melacha should be applicable to any live creature. The rabanan argue that the key feature of these rams was that they reproduced via sexual reproduction (פרו ורבו), and so the melacha should only be applicable to those creatures which do likewise. [as an aside, it is interesting to consider why this feature is deemed important by the rabanan. Presumably they think that part of the definition of life is the ability to procreate and pass on life to the next generation, and as such, only creatures with this capability can truly be defined as "alive"].</ref> It therefore excludes killing lice from the melacha of shocheit.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that it is permitted to kill a כינה (louse) on shabbat. </ref>
# Nowadays
## Today, lice seemingly do not spontaneously generate but rather sexually reproduce. Are we still entitled to rely upon the leniency codified in the gemara and Shulchan Aruch?
## Some poskim say that one may still rely upon this leniency<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah (316:38 footnote 72) cites from Rav Dessler (Michtav M'eliyahu V4 pg 355 ft 4) that even though the מציאות (lit: realia) that we perceive differs from that which chazal understood when they established the halacha, this doesn't change anything. We may still rely upon the halacha as they defined it. Perhaps chazal also knew that lice really did sexually procreate, but since this is invisible to the naked eye, chazal treated them as if they do not (thus chazal were not wrong in their assessment of the situation, but were merely saying something different than their words might imply).</ref>, while others are strict.<ref>The Pachad Yitzchak (Tzeida pg 21b), a work written by the late-17th-century Italian sage Yitzchak Lampronti, suggests that actually nowadays one should be strict and refrain from killing lice on shabbat, given that we observe that they do sexually procreate. The halacha as defined by chazal is that one may not kill creatures which sexually procreate, and therefore these creatures are included. There was never a special leniency for lice per se, but rather they just fit into a category of leniency. The Dirshu footnote cites Rav Elyashiv (orchot shabbat V1 Ch14 footnote 47) as also being strict.</ref>

== Chovel (lit: wounding) ==

# Background
## The Mishna (107a) teaches that one who is chovel (causes a wound) in a person or animal has violated a melacha on Shabbat.
## Which av melacha is it?<ref>In hilchot shabbat we distinguish between an "av melacha" (lit: parent melacha) and a "toldah" (lit: offspring) of a melacha. There are 39 categories of forbidden melacha, and each category can contain many offshoots that are similar to the parent (similar enough to be considered a toldah but different enough to not be considered the av itself). The toldah, while conceptually distinct from the av, is still prohibited biblically. See Rambam hilchot shabbat 7:1-6 for a clear explanation of the difference between an av melacha and a toldah. For example, the av melacha of tochein (lit: grinding) refers to grinding up wheat into flour. A toldah of tochein is chopping up vegetables into small pieces. This is distinct from the av in its GOAL (making flour vs. having smaller veggies to make eating them easier), but similar to the av in its ACTION (in both cases you take a big item and turn it into many small items).</ref>
### The Rambam<ref>Hilchot Shabbat 8:7</ref> writes that one who is chovel has violated [[dosh]] (threshing).<ref>This is because when a wound is caused, blood is removed from a person’s capillaries, which is similar to the threshing process (in which the kernel is removed from the husk). One interesting question on this shita is that the Rambam himself paskens that אין דישה אלא בגדולי קרקע (the melacha of threshing is only applicable on that which grows from the ground). Seemingly then, there should be no problem of dosh when causing a wound on an animal, because animals don't grow in the ground! Kesef Mishna (hilchot shabbat 8:7) cites this question from the Ramach, and doesn't give an answer. The Maggid Mishna answers that perhaps the Rambam thinks that animals are in fact considered to "grow in the ground" since they are sustained from plants which grow in the ground. Rav Avraham ben Harambam (birkat avraham hilchot shabbat 8:7) answers that there is a difference between the av melacha and the tolda. The requirement of gidulei karka is only for the av melacha. But a tolda is merely an offshoot of the melacha, and not the melacha itself, and hence it isn't subject to the standards of the av melacha. The fact that it is different from the av means that it is entitled to be different. Hence, choveil, despite being a tolda of dosh, is applicable even to that which does not grow in the ground.</ref>
### Tosafot<ref>Shabbat 75a s.v. ki</ref> writes that one is liable for [[shocheit]].<ref>Tosfot explains that the pasuk (devarim 12:23) states “ki hadam hu hanefesh” (lit: the blood is the soul), and so it follows that one who causes a wound and removes blood in essence removes a bit of the soul, which is equivalent to the melacha of shocheit. </ref>
### Rashi<ref>Shabbat 107a s.v. v'hachoveil</ref> cites an opinion that one who hits an animal and causes it to bruise is considered to have dyed the hide, thereby violating the melacha of [[tzoveah]].<ref>See Tosfot ketubot 5b s.v. dam, who asks many questions on Rashi. He cites many examples of cases in which seemingly one is chayav for choveil despite not causing any dyeing, but rather just removing blood. Pri megadim (mishbetzot zahav 316:5) suggests that perhaps Rashi is just coming to explain why causing a black-and-blue (without causing bleeding) is choveil, but that Rashi agrees to Tosfot that if one causes bleeding then one has violated the melacha of shocheit. </ref>
## What's the Nafka Minah (practical ramification)?
### How much blood needs to be removed to be chayav?<ref>Rambam (hilchot shabbat 8:7) writes that since choveil is a toldah of dosh, it has the same "shiur" (minimum amount) as dosh, which is a grogeres (lit: fig). The Maggid Mishna there suggests that according to Tosfot (choveil is a toldah of shocheit) it should follow that there's no minimum shiur to violate it, since shocheit has no minimum shiur. The Mishna Brurah 316:29 (and shaar hatziyon 316:43) accepts this reasoning. </ref>
### Is it possible to violate choveil on a dead creature?<ref>Biur Halacha (316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil) suggests that if you hold like the Rambam that choveil is a toldah of dosh, then it should be relevant even when removing the blood of a dead creature, since at the end of the day you are still removing blood. However, if you hold like Tosfot that choveil is a toldah of shocheit, then once the animal is dead it cannot be killed again, and thus removing the blood should be permitted. </ref>
### What about removing unwanted blood?<ref>Biur Halacha (316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil) discusses a case of bloodletting for health purposes, in which one removes the blood but then the blood goes to waste. If choveil is a toldah of shocheit, then the fact that the blood goes to waste is irrelevant, as one has still removed some of the life, and thereby violated choveil. However, if choveil is a toldah of dosh then it follows that it is only considered "צריכה לגופה" (done for the purpose of the melacha) if you remove the blood because you want the blood, just like one who threshes removes the kernel from the husk because they want the kernel (and not because they want an empty husk). Thus, according to the Rambam, bloodletting would be considered a melacha that is not done for the purpose of the melacha [it happens to be that the Rambam paskens like Rebbe Yehudah that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is still biblically forbidden, so he would still hold that bloodletting is biblically forbidden despite its being eina tzricha l'gufa].</ref>
## The Shulchan Aruch (316:8) does not take a firm stance on whether to rule in accordance with the Rambam or Tosafos.<ref>It seems unanimous amongst the poskim to reject Rashi, since most of the time one isn't interested in dying the hide and so would not be chayav for tzoveah. However, if indeed one was interested in dying the hide, and dyed the requisite amount to violate the melacha of tzove'ah, then they would be chayav for this melacha (see Biur Halacha 316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil). </ref>
### However, the commentaries on Shulchan Aruch appear to hold like Tosafot.<ref>Magen Avraham 316:8 and Mishna Brurah 316:29. Beit Yosef 316:8 also appears to side with Tosafot.</ref>
# Practical Example
## Blood test
### One who draws blood for a blood test wants the blood that they are removing (in contrast to bloodletting discussed above), and this certainly would violate choveil if performed by a Jew, except in cases of pikuach nefesh
### There is more room to be lenient to have the blood test administered by a non-Jew for a Jew who is sick (choleh she'ein bo sakana), since we generally permit amira l'akum for such a person.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 328:17. Mishna Brurah 328:47 explains that a non-Jew may even perform biblical melacha on behalf of a Jew who is sick (but not in danger of dying).</ref>
## Injection
### If a needle must enter a person’s skin but no blood actually needs to be removed for the procedure to be effective, then there may be more room to be lenient to administer such a procedure for a choleh shein bo skana.<ref name="ftn186"> Here there is no issue of shocheit, because blood may not come out, and even if blood certainly will come out, one is not interested in that blood at all and so this would be a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei (which is rabbinically prohibited according to most poskim). There is also a rabbinic issue of creating a hole (Ketubot 5b, Shabbos 107a, Rambam Shabbos 23:1). For a choleh shein bo sakana, these two issues may perhaps be permitted (S”A 328:17).</ref>
### It is certainly still preferable to have the injection administered by a non-Jew.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 328:17 paskens explicitly that we permit amira l'akum for a choleh she'ein bo sakana.</ref>
## All doctors should consult their respective rabbanim for guidance on how to deal with these and similar questions that relate to their field of work.

==Sources==
<references/>

[[Category:Orach Chaim]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Shochet

2024-07-26T20:31:01Z

Gsilver2: /* Killing Harmful Creatures */

{{Okay}}
The Mishna (73a) lists ‘shocheit’ (slaughtering) as one of the 39 avot melachot on Shabbos. It is clear in the gemara and rishonim that the av melacha is not limited to ritual slaughtering per se, but actually includes killing more broadly.<ref>Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:1) states that not only is slaughtering part of this melacha, but actually any taking of a life (e.g. beating, stabbing, etc.) of an animal, bird, fish, or insect, is included in this melacha. However, he then remarks that strangling a living creature until it dies is only a toldah of the melacha, but not the av melacha itself. This is somewhat surprising, as one would have assumed that if the definition of the melacha is "taking life" then strangling would have been part of the av itself, and not merely a toldah. Perhaps strangling is different because it is merely preventing the creature from breathing and is thus a less direct form of killing, and is seen as a sort of grama. The Mirkevet Hamishna suggets that perhaps strangling is different because really the definition of the melacha is "removing blood", and strangling does not involve any removal of blood. Regardless, it is clear that the melacha is much more expansive than simply "slaughtering". </ref>

== Killing Harmful Creatures ==

# Conceptual Categories
## Whether or not one may kill a creature on shabbat depends on how harmful it is:
### If there's a chance it will kill you, then you can kill it even if it is not chasing you.<ref>Generallly speaking, we know that pikuach nefesh is a prime value in Judaism, and that it pushes off most mitzvot, including shabbat. Thus one may violate shabbat in order to save a life, or even if it's only a safek whether it will save a life (see gemara in Yoma 85b). The gemara in shabbat essentially applies this principle to the prohibition of killing creatures on shabbat, as we shall see.

*The gemara 121b cites Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi as holding that all מזיקין (lit: damagers) may be killed on shabbat. The gemara raises an objection to this from a beraita which states that only 5 particularly harmful creatures may be killed on shabbat. There is a machlokes rishonim how the gemara answers this question. Rashi thinks that the beraita is talking about when the creature is not chasing you, and the beraita holds like the position of rebbe shimon, that a melacha not done for its intended purpose (e.g. killing an animal just because you don't want it to harm you, but not because you want the hide) is only rabbinically prohibited. Thus one may kill these creatures even if they aren't chasing you, since anyways killing them is only an isur drabanan, and chazal weren't gozer in a case when it might cause harm. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when a harmful creature is chasing you, and so it's permitted to kill it because of pikuach nefesh. Thus, according to Rashi, when one is being chased by a creature that might kill, it is certainly permitted to kill it. And according to Rebbe Shimon (who most rishonim pasken like), it will be permitted to kill one of the five harmful creatures even if it is not chasing you. The Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:4) seems to understand that this list of 5 was not exhaustive, but rather just were examples of creatures that could kill.

*Tosfot disagrees, and thinks that the beraita can even accord with the position of rebbe yehudah - that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is still biblically forbidden - but it's talking about when the animal is chasing you. Since the animal is chasing you, and it's one of the five very harmful creatures, it is pikuach nefesh and you can kill it. Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi is talking about when the animal is not chasing you, but nonetheless it is permitted to kill it because he's holding like rebbe shimon (with respect to a melacha not done for its intended purpose). Thus, according to tosfot too, it will come out that when an animal that can kill is chasing you, you may kill it, and even if it is not chasing you, you can kill it according to Rebbe Shimon.

*Shulchan Aruch 316:10 states that any animal that has the potential to kill may be killed on shabbat even if it is not chasing you. It is unclear whether he reads the gemara like Rashi or like Tosfot, as this halacha can fit with either position. The Be'er Hagola says that he holds like Tosfot, and thus this is the statement of Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi. The Biur Hagra 316:25 thinks he learns like Rashi (and like the Rambam that the list of 5 was not exhaustive), in which case this is the statement of the beraita. </ref>
### If it is damaging but can't kill<ref>Examples of these creatures that the Shulchan Aruch 316:10 gives include snakes and scorpions. Presumably, he is referring to snakes and scorpions with non-deadly stings or bites.</ref>, then you can kill it if it's chasing you,<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:10. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that since we pasken like Rebbe Shimon (that melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa is patur), killing a harmful creature to prevent it from damaging you is only an isur drabanan. Here, since there's a good chance it will damage you (since it's chasing you), chazal did not impose their gezeira and so we are lenient with this isur drabanan, and allow one to kill the creature. [as an aside, the Rambam seems to cite this halacha as well, despite the fact that he paskens like Rebbe Yehudah regarding melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. How can this be? Why would we allow an isur deorayta if there is no concern of pikuach nefesh?! The Mishna Brurah 316:46 explains that when the Rambam uses the phrase "שאר מזיקין" (lit: other damagers), he is still referring to creatures which have the potential to kill, just less so. Thus the reason for the leniency to kill them according to him is because of pikuach nefesh. However, we who hold like Rebbe Shimon will permit killing damaging creatures even if we know that they can't kill].</ref> but otherwise not (although there is a special leniency that one may kill it while walking).<ref>The gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill a snake in their normal course of walking (דורסו לפי תומו). Rashi s.v. dilma seems to understand that this leniency is only if one doesn't have intention to kill it. However, most rishonim (see Ran) disagree and hold that even if one has intention to kill the snake, one may do so, since killing it is only an isur drabanan (according to Rebbe Shimon that a melacha not done for its intended purpose is only rabbinically forbidden), and here to the onlooker it appears like an accident. The Shulchan Aruch 316:10 paskens like these rishonim, and allows one to step on damaging creatures while walking even with intention to kill them. </ref>
### If it is painful but not damaging, then you can never kill it.<ref>The Tur 316 states that if one is being bitten by a פרעוש (mosquito) one may trap it to prevent it from continuing to bite, but one may not kill it. The Beit Yosef explains that the Tur understood the gemara in shabbat 107b (which states that one may not kill a par'ush) to be referring to even when being bitten. Thus, when the gemara shabbat 121b states that one may kill "מזיקין" (damaging creatures) when being chased (and certainly when they are actually biting you), this was only referring to creatures that are very damaging (but just not lethal). The Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that one may not kill a par'ush even if it is in the act of biting you. The Mishna Brurah 316:46 assumes that any small insect will have the same din as a par'ush, and will be asur to kill even if it is biting you (since there is not so much pain). Rather, must simply shoo them away.</ref>
# Practical Examples
## Mosquito, fly, gnat, ant, spider, etc. - may never be killed on shabbat<ref>Mishna Brurah 316:46</ref>
## Bee, wasp, hornet, etc. - some poskim treat these like gnats (and so may never be killed, even if stinging you),<ref>The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a gnat. Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.</ref> while others treat them like snakes (so may be killed if chasing you).<ref>Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to kill it if being chased. </ref>

== Killing Lice ==

# The gemara defines the type of creature that one may not kill on shabbat to be one which procreates via sexual reproduction.<ref>The gemara shabbat 107b cites a beraita in which rebbe eliezer holds that one who kills a "כינה" (lit: louse) on shabbat is considered as if he killed a camel (i.e. it is prohibited). However, the gemara continues that the rabanan disagree and hold that one may kill a louse on shabbat. The gemara explains that the root of this debate is how to define the type of creature which we are commanded not to kill on shabbat. Everyone agrees that we learn from what was done in the preparations of the mishkan; in the mishkan they used to kill the "אילים" (lit: rams) for the purpose of using the hides. Rebbe Eliezer says that the key feature of these rams was simply that they were alive, and so the melacha should be applicable to any live creature. The rabanan argue that the key feature of these rams was that they reproduced via sexual reproduction (פרו ורבו), and so the melacha should only be applicable to those creatures which do likewise. [as an aside, it is interesting to consider why this feature is deemed important by the rabanan. Presumably they think that part of the definition of life is the ability to procreate and pass on life to the next generation, and as such, only creatures with this capability can truly be defined as "alive"].</ref> It therefore excludes killing lice from the melacha of shocheit.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that it is permitted to kill a כינה (louse) on shabbat. </ref>
# Nowadays
## Today, lice seemingly do not spontaneously generate but rather sexually reproduce. Are we still entitled to rely upon the leniency codified in the gemara and Shulchan Aruch?
## Some poskim say that one may still rely upon this leniency<ref>Dirshu Mishna Brurah (316:38 footnote 72) cites from Rav Dessler (Michtav M'eliyahu V4 pg 355 ft 4) that even though the מציאות (lit: realia) that we perceive differs from that which chazal understood when they established the halacha, this doesn't change anything. We may still rely upon the halacha as they defined it. Perhaps chazal also knew that lice really did sexually procreate, but since this is invisible to the naked eye, chazal treated them as if they do not (thus chazal were not wrong in their assessment of the situation, but were merely saying something different than their words might imply).</ref>, while others are strict.<ref>The Pachad Yitzchak (Tzeida pg 21b), a work written by the late-17th-century Italian sage Yitzchak Lampronti, suggests that actually nowadays one should be strict and refrain from killing lice on shabbat, given that we observe that they do sexually procreate. The halacha as defined by chazal is that one may not kill creatures which sexually procreate, and therefore these creatures are included. There was never a special leniency for lice per se, but rather they just fit into a category of leniency. The Dirshu footnote cites Rav Elyashiv (orchot shabbat V1 Ch14 footnote 47) as also being strict.</ref>

== Chovel (lit: wounding) ==

# Background
## The Mishna (107a) teaches that one who is chovel (causes a wound) in a person or animal has violated a melacha on Shabbat.
## What av melacha does one violate when doing chovel?
### The Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 8:7) writes that one who is chovel has violated [[dosh]] (threshing), because when a wound is caused, blood is removed from a person’s capillaries, which is similar to the threshing process.
### Tosafot (shabbat 75a s.v. ki) writes that one is liable for [[shocheit]]. Tosafot explains that the pasuk states “ki hadam hu hanefesh” (lit: the blood is the soul), and one who causes a person to have a wound removes a bit of the soul, which is equivalent to the melacha of shocheit.
### Rashi (shabbat 107a s.v. v'hachoveil) cites an opinion that one who hits an animal and causes it to bruise is considered to have "dyed" the hide, thereby violating the melacha of [[tzoveah]].
## What's the Nafka Minah (practical ramification)?
### Shiur
### After death
### Removing blood that is unwanted
## The Shulchan Aruch (316:8) does not take a firm stance on whether to rule in accordance with the Rambam or Tosafos.<ref>It seems unanimous amongst the poskim to reject Rashi, since most of the time one isn't interested in dying the hide and so would not be chayav for tzoveah. However, if indeed one was interested in dying the hide, and dyed the requisite amount to violate the melacha of tzove'ah, then they would be chayav for this melacha (see Biur Halacha 316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil). </ref>
### However, the commentaries on Shulchan Aruch appear to hold like Tosafot.<ref>Magen Avraham 316:8 and Mishna Brurah 316:29. Beit Yosef 316:8 also appears to side with Tosafot.</ref>
# Practical Example
## Doctor drawing blood
### In situations where the blood is part of the general circulation (and is needed by the doctor to perform a blood test or the like), then this may violate shocheit, and would prohibited except in cases of pikuach nefesh.
### In contrast, if either the blood or fluid needed is not part of the general circulation<ref name="ftn185"> The Gemara Ketubot 5b states that there is no issue of Shocheit if the blood is mifkad pakid. Rashi s.v. mifkad explains that blood that is mifkad pakid stays collected in a certain valve and isn’t absorbed into the flesh. The language of “not part of the general circulation” is borrowed from Rav Schachter’s translation of mifkad pakid regarding Tosfos Shabbos 75a s.v. ki.</ref>, or if a needle must enter a person’s skin but no blood actually needs to be removed for the procedure to be effective, then there may be more room to be lenient to administer such a procedure for a choleh shein bo skana since shocheit wouldn’t apply to such blood<ref name="ftn186"> Even though there is no issue of Shocheit, nonetheless, there is a rabbinic issue of creating a hole (Ketubot 5b, Shabbos 107a, Rambam Shabbos 23:1). For a choleh shein bo sakana, it may be permitted (S”A 328:17).</ref>.
### All doctors should consult their respective rabbanim for guidance on how to deal with these and similar questions that relate to their field of work.

==Sources==
<references/>

[[Category:Orach Chaim]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Shochet

2024-07-26T03:42:10Z

Gsilver2:

Reading on Shabbat

2024-07-26T02:26:36Z

Gsilver2: /* Newspapers, Advertisements, Business */

{{Good}}
[[Image:Newspaper.jpg|right|200px]]There are certain reading materials that chazal prohibited one from reading on shabbat, either because they were concerned that one might come to erase (and thereby violate the melacha of [[mochek]]), or because they are inappropriate for the holy atmosphere of the day. This broad category of prohibited reading is referred to as shtarei hedyotot.

==Introduction==

# There are really 3 distinct categories of prohibited reading on shabbat:
## Shtarei hedyotot (lit: documents of the masses)<ref>The gemara shabbat 116b cites a beraita in which Rebbe Nechemya states that one is prohibited from reading even books of ketuvim on shabbat lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot. While we hold like the chochomim who think that reading ketuvim was only prohibited during the time when people would otherwise go hear the rav's drasha on shabbat, in order to encourage attendance to the shiur, it is nonetheless instructive that went so far as to prohibit reading parts of Torah on shabbat. </ref>
### Some say that this refers to business documents only, while others are more expansive.<ref>There is quite a range of opinions regarding what exactly classifies under the category of "shtarei hedyotot" (lit: documents of the masses). Rashi on shabbat 149a implies that they are business documents (של מקח וממכר), which would be very reasonable why chazal prohibited reading them on shabbat. Shabbat is not meant to be a day of conducting business or even of looking into one's business affairs. However, Rashi on shabbat 116b implies that this category also includes letters that don't seem to have any business connection whatsoever (אגרות השלוחות למצוא חפץ). Tosfot 116b (s.v. v'kol sheken) seems to understand that Rashi initially thought the category was more expansive (rashi 166b), but then retracted this position to limit shtarei hedyotot to business documents (rashi 149b). Either way, the Ri cited in tosfot clearly takes the position that only business documents are included in the prohibition of shtarei hedyotot.</ref>
## Guest lists and Menus<ref>The mishna shabbat 148b says that one may not read a guest list or menu. The gemara 149a cites a debate whether the concern is that one will come to erase some names, or whether one will come to read "shtarei hedyotot". The Shulchan Aruch 307:12 paskens this gemara. We are concerned for both opinions in the gemara, and therefore the only permitted way to read such a list is to engrave it in a wall, since this is difficult to erase (so no concern of שמא ימחוק) and also not easily confused with a document (so no concern of שמא יקרא בשטרי הדיוטות).</ref>
## Captions to Pictures<ref>The gemara 149a cites a beraita which prohibits reading the writing underneath images. Rashi explains that this refers to paintings or murals on a wall, such as those depicting the battle between Dovid and Goliath, or depicting various animals. There is a debate whether the reason for this prohibition is lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot (rashi 149a s.v. asur), lest one come to erase the caption (Ran page 63b in the dapei harif), or because it itself is considered shtarei hedyotot (Meiri, beit habechira 149a). Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 307:51) adds that the Beit Yosef seems to hold that way as well. Eliya Rabba 307:37 writes that the practical difference between Ran and Rashi would be if the caption is engraved, where the concern that you may come to erase wouldn't exist. </ref>
# It is a debate amongst the rishonim how to extrapolate from these 3 categories to other types of reading.
## Some prohibit all secular reading.<ref>The Rambam Peiriush Hamishnayos 23:2 prohibits reading any secular literature on shabbat, only permitting Torah literature. </ref>
## Others are much more permissive in their approach.<ref>The Rosh (shabbat 23:1) understands that the category of shtarei hedyotot itself is limited to business documents. Nonetheless, he prohibits reading letters since if reading captions to pictures is prohibited lest one read shtarei hedyotot, then certainly reading letters should be prohibited as well. Nonetheless, he does not seem to go as far as the Rambam in prohibiting all non-Torah literature. </ref>

==Reason for the Prohibition==

# There are two main approaches explaining why shtarei hedyotot are prohibited to read:
## Violation of the pasuk "ממצוא חפציך ודבר דבר" (lit: seeking your engagements, and speaking about matters)<ref>Sefer yeshaya 58:13</ref>, which enjoins us not to spend shabbat dealing with our weekday affairs.<ref>Rosh 23:1 gives this reason</ref>
## Decree lest one come to erase.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 23:19 gives this reason. </ref>
# Possible Nafka Minot (lit: practical differences between the two reasons)
## According to the first reason (not speaking or dealing with weekday activity on shabbat), then perhaps we would be more inclined to permit the following:
### Scanning (without reading aloud)<ref>The Rosh 23:1 cites a debate in the rishonim regarding this question. Some [unnamed] rabbis permitted it, whereas the Rabbenu Yona prohibited it. The Rosh brings a proof from the Tosefta to this side, since there the language used is that one may not be מסתכל (lit: look) at captions underneath pictures, indicating that even scanning is prohibited. One may have assumed that the Rosh would be lenient given that he thinks the reason for the prohibition is from ודבר דבר, nonetheless he prefers the strict approach. This somewhat pokes a hole in the idea that scanning is really a nafka minah between the reasons of the Rosh and the Rambam. </ref>
#### The halacha follows the strict approach.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:13 says that one may not scan shtarei hedyotot even without reading them aloud.</ref>
### Pleasure Reading<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 301:2 says that children who enjoy running on shabbat are allowed to run, even though running is generally prohibited on shabbat. He says that "so too it is permitted to see anything that gives one pleasure". This is very vague. Perhaps he means that one is allowed to run in order to see a sight that they find enjoyable (see Mishna Brurah 301:6 who understands it this way). However, the Magen Avraham 301:4 understands that this refers to a different leniency. Namely, that one is allowed to read captions underneath images on shabbat if it gives one pleasure. This would provide a major leniency in terms of reading material on shabbat that would otherwise be prohibited.</ref>
#### The minhag is to be lenient on this issue, despite the objections of many poskim.<ref>Many achronim are not happy with this leniency of the Magen Avraham (see for instance, shaar hatziyon 301:7, who cites the Chemed Moshe and Maamar Mordechai as rejecting the Magen Avraham). Nonetheless, the common practice in many Jewish communities seems to be to take a very lax approach towards shtarei hedyotot. Perhaps this Magen Avraham is a limud zchus on this practice. </ref>
### Reading Secular Wisdom<ref>Mishna [[Shabbat]] 148b writes that one may not count the number of guests from a list on [[Shabbat]]. Abaye in the Gemara 149a explains that this is a rabbinic restriction so as not to come to read a Shtar Hedyot on [[Shabbat]]. What is a Shtar Hedyot which one may not read on [[Shabbat]]? Rashi 116b s.v. Shtar explains it to be financial calculations or letters. The Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot [[Shabbat]] 23:2) also explains Shtar Hedyot to mean letters and the reason for this is that on [[Shabbat]] one may only read Navi and it’s explanations and not even a book of wisdom and science. Bet Yosef 307:17 quotes the Baal HaMoer (43a s.v. VeHa) who agrees.

However, the Rashba (149a s.v. VeLeInyan) explains Shtar Hedyot as a business documents. This is also the definition of the Ri quoted in Tosfot 116b d"h "kol sheken" and the Rosh (see there where he writes that reading shtarei hedyotot is a problem of mimtzo cheftecha from Yishayahu 58:13) [[Shabbat]] 23:1 (Rashi himself on 149a seems to say this also, and tosfot 149a d"h "shtarei" questions Rashi. see Netziv in Meromei Sadeh 149 for a reconciliation of Rashi). Therefore, Sh”t Rashba 7:288 rules that it’s permitted to read books of wisdom and medicine and quotes the Ramban who agreed. [Bet Yosef 307:17 learns this out from another Teshuva of the Rashba 1:772 where he says that one may analyze an astrological tool called the Istrolav.]</ref>
#### According to Sephardim, one should only learn Torah on [[Shabbat]] and one may not learn secular subjects such as science. According to Ashkenazim, many are lenient to allow learning secular wisdom on [[Shabbat]], but a pious person should refrain.<ref name=":0">*S”A 307:17 rules like the Rambam who says that on [[Shabbat]] one should only learn Torah and not books of other wisdoms, however, he mentions that some are lenient. Mishna Brurah 307:65 writes that the minhag is like the Rashba, however, a pious person (Yireh Shamayim) should be strict. [http://www.ravaviner.com/2010/01/studying-secular-subjects-on-shabbat.html Rav Aviner] holds like the Mishna Brurah. 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 982) uses a stricter language saying strictly speaking pleasure reading is permitted but it’s best to refrain from any secular books.
*Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:49 extends the Mishna Brurah even to permit reading professional literature, journals that does not include any business, and textbooks. He notes that Rav Shlomo Zalman (Nishmat Avraham 307:5) is quoted to say that a doctor could learn medicine on [[Shabbat]] but a medical student may not.
*However, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 2, pg 214, 626) rules like Shulchan Aruch that one should only learn Torah on [[Shabbat]] and is only lenient to allow a medical student who has a test after [[Shabbat]] and is pressured for time to study medicine (except for the study of surgery) on [[Shabbat]]. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/Display.asp?ClipDate=8/5/2009 Rabbi Mansour] on DailyHalacha.com agrees. Menuchat Ahava (vol 1, pg 234) writes that the halacha follows Shulchan Aruch but one doesn’t have to protest those who are lenient because they have what to rely on.
*It's interesting to note that the Rama (Sh"t Rama 7) writes that he only studied philosophy from Moreh Nevuchim on [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]] when others were taking walks.</ref>
### Reading for the Sake of a Mitzvah<ref>The Magen Avraham 307:16 cites the Bach who prohibits a shamash (lit: helper) from reading the guest list on shabbat, because even though there is no concern that he will erase it - since he doesn't have the authority to erase it as he isn't the ba'al habayit (lit: owner of the house) - nonetheless he is prohibited because of the other concern that he might come to read shtarei hedyotot. However, the Magen Avraham himself argues, and holds that since based on the pasuk of ממצוא חפציך we only prohibit weekday dealings that are not for the sake of a mitzvah (see gemara shabbat 150a), we can allow the shamash to read the guest list since this meal is for the sake of the mitzvah (eating a seudah on shabbat). The Magen Avraham here seems to be holding that the reason for the prohibition of shtarei hedyotot is like the first approach cited above (in accordance with the Rosh), and not like the second approach (that of the Rambam, that it's a decree lest one come to erase).</ref>

==Learning Secular Subjects on Shabbat==
# As mentioned above, according to Sephardim, one should only learn Torah on [[Shabbat]] and not secular subjects.
# However, according to Ashkenazim, one may learn secular wisdom on [[Shabbat]], although a pious person should refrain.<ref name=":0" />
## One may read Jewish history texts that inspire mussar and Yirat Hashem.<ref> S”A 307:16 writes that secular literature, romance, and history of wars are forbidden to read on [[Shabbat]] and even during the week because it is considered an activity of scoffers (Moshav Letzim) and it is like following idolater’s practices (Al Tifnu El HaElilim) and reading romance is also a violation of provoking the Yetzer Hara. Mishna Brurah 307:58 writes that Yosephon (not the same as Josephus) and a few other Jewish history books aren’t included in this prohibition because one learns from them ethics and fear of heaven (Yirat Hashem). Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:11 writes that one shouldn't study history on [[Shabbat]], however, one may read Jewish History books which inspire Yirat Shamayim and have Mussar in them, such as Shevet Yehuda, Sefer Yuchsin, Divrei HaYamim of Ri HaKohen, or Yosefon (which is not the same as Josephus). </ref>
## Many authorities forbid reading novels on [[Shabbat]]. Some are lenient for pleasure reading.<ref>S”A 307:16 writes that secular literature, romance, and history of wars are forbidden to read on [[Shabbat]] and even during the week because it is considered an activity of scoffers (Moshav Letzim) and it is like following idolater’s practices (Al Tifnu El HaElilim) and reading romance is also a violation of provoking the Yetzer Hara. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (quoted by Menucha Shelemah pg 226) says that it is forbidden to read narratives and dramas on [[Shabbat]] because they do not inspire to Yirat Shamayim. Similarly, [[Shabbos]] Home (Rabbi Simcha Cohen, vol 1, pg 57-8) writes that the minhag is lenient by science, math, and medicine but not history and fictional novels which are not considered ‘wisdom’, however, one who fears heaven should refrain from any secular wisdom on [[Shabbat]]. However, 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 982) (based on Rama 307:1 and Mishna Brurah 307:65) writes that strictly speaking pleasure reading is permitted but concludes that it’s best to refrain from any secular book on [[Shabbat]]. 39 Melachos adds that obviously if there’s objectionable material it’s forbidden to read on [[Shabbat]] or the week. </ref> Some are lenient if it is written in hebrew<ref>The Rama 307:16 says that the prohibition of reading fiction novels about war on shabbat is only if they are written in other languages, but if it is written in lashon hakodesh (Hebrew) then it would be permitted. The reason is explained by the Rama in the Darchei Moshe 307:8 that reading a novel in Hebrew will help one better be able to learn Torah (presumably by improving their Hebrew language skills), and also because the language itself has intrinsic holiness. The Rama brings a proof to this idea from Tosfot (shabbat 116b s.v. v'kol sheken) who says that it's prohibited to read novels that are written in "לשון לעז" (lit: the lingu franca), which seems to imply that it would be permitted if written in Hebrew. </ref> but others disagree.<ref>The Mishna Brurah 307:64 cites from the Agudah, Taz, Bach, Gra, and many other achronim, who all objected to this leniency of the Rama. They understand that just because the novel is written in Hebrew does not make it permitted to read on shabbat.</ref>
# Concerning studying for a secular test on [[Shabbat]], see the page on [[Hachana#Study Torah and other subjects|Hachana]].
==Reading Mail==
# In general it’s forbidden to read letters on [[Shabbat]], even of a social or business correspondence.<ref>The Rosh (shabbat 23:1) prohibits reading letters because he thinks that just like chazal decreed against reading guest lists or menus lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot, so too they prohibited all non-critical reading. Rashi (shabbat 116b s.v. shtarei) seems to hold that these letters are themselves shtarei hedyotot. Other rishonim disagreed and held that one could read these letters on shabbat. The Ran (64b in the dapei harif) cites from the Ramban who also permitted reading letters on shabbat, as they are not included in the prohibition of shtarei hedyotot. Nonetheless, the Shulchan Aruch 307:13 holds like the machmir view that one may not read them on shabbat. He seems to hold like Rashi that these letters are forbidden to read because they are themselves shtarei hedyotot. However, the Mishna Brurah 307:52 seems to understand that these letters are actually prohibited lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot (i.e. like the Rosh). Regardless, they are prohibited.</ref>
# However, if a letter of social correspondence arrived on [[Shabbat]], it’s permissible to read it silently (without moving one’s lips), because it’s possible that it contains crucial information.<ref>It is clear from Tosfot (shabbat 116b s.v. v'kol sheken) that the common minhag in Ashkenaz was to read letters on shabbat that people would send to one another in the mail. However, the practice seemed difficult to justify given that these letters seemingly should have been prohibited to read, either as shtarei hedyotot themselves (Rashi), or as part of the decree not to read other documents lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot (Rosh). So how do we explain the practice to read letters that arrived on shabbat? Tosfot cites the Ri that permitted reading these letters because perhaps they contain some important information that could lead to pikuach nefesh (lit: saving a life). Tosfot then cites Rabbenu Tam who permits reading them even if one knows with certainty that they don't contain any critical information, because the very fact that one knows what it is in the letter is reason to permit reading it. Why should this be? Tosfot doesn't explain, but presumably the idea is that if one knows what is written in the letter then there is less of a concern that one is going to erase it, and Tosfot is going like the Rambam, that the reason for these prohibitions is a decree lest one come to erase. Shulchan Aruch 307:14 paskens like the Ri, that if one doesn't know what the letter contains, then it is permissible to read. However, since he isn't convinced that the Ri is really correct, he is machmir to only allow one to scan the letter without reading it aloud, as by doing this one also is relying upon the leniency that perhaps scanning isn't prohibited at all (like the Rosh 23:1 cited in the name of unspecified rabbis - "איכא רבוותא").</ref>
## Some suggest that nowadays this leniency no longer applies, since if something was truly urgent, it would not be communicated via mail, but rather via phone or some other medium.<ref>Sh"t Iggerot Moshe 5:21:5 writes that since we no longer get any urgent news in the [[mail]], this doesn't really apply anymore. Tiltulei [[shabbat]] teshuva 29, Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen (The [[Shabbos]] Home 5 footnote 14), Beer Moshe 6:66, and Rav Avigdor Neventzal (Yerushalayim Bimoadeha, [[Shabbat]] Kodesh 2 page 260) all agree to be stringent.</ref>
# However, business letters may not be read on [[Shabbat]] at all.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:45. </ref>
==Newspapers, Advertisements, Business==
#Newspapers
##Some say that it is permitted to read newspapers on Shabbat, skipping the business sections and advertisements.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 29:48, 31:25. A Guide to Practical Halacha (Shabbat v. 3 p. 155 n. 53) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who allowed reading the newspaper on Shabbat especially in a time of war, while others hold it is forbidden. Either way, he says that it is forbidden to read the advertisements, business and financial articles, stock listings, real estate listings, and classified ads. The Mishna Brurah 307:63 cites from the Shvut Yaakov who allowed reading them for the same reason as the Ri allowed reading mail (i.e. perhaps there is some critical information). One could perhaps also argue that much of the newspaper can be considered like books of wisdom, as there is much one can learn about the world (sociology, history, science, politics, etc.) from reading it. It is well known that the Netziv used to read the Jewish newspaper (entitled "Hamagid") on shabbat, merely scanning the words and not reading aloud (seemingly paskening against the Shulchan Aruch who is strict about scanning). See the Torah Temimah's autobiography (Mekor Baruch Vol 4, page 1790) who cites this fact about his uncle, the Netziv. Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen (Shabbos Home V1 pg 64 footnote 14) cites from the Yaavetz another potential reason to be lenient based on the leniency of the Magen Avraham to allow pleasure reading.</ref> Others prohibit reading them because all the sections are mixed together.<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:63</ref>
#Advertisements
##It is forbidden to read a catalogue of advertisements or anything that has any bearing on finances.<ref> Mishna Brurah 307:63, Yalkut Yosef 307.22, Rav Yisrael Belsky in Shulchan Halevi page 90, as well as Menuchat Ahava (vol 1, pg 233) who says this prohibition even applies if you are shopping for a mitzva-related item such as the [[arba minim]]. </ref>
## It is permissible to read a pamphlet that has both Torah and advertisements, as long as one is careful to not look at the advertisements.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Volume 5, Page 72; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Pages 115-116 </ref>
# Newspaper Printed on Shabbat
## Nolad (lit: created)<ref>This refers to something which came into being on shabbat, and is therefore considered muktzah.</ref>
### Some poskim consider a newspaper printed on Shabbat to be nolad and forbidden to read. Others disagree. Furthermore, since it was in the property of the non-Jew, it might not be muktzeh.<ref>Rivevot Efraim 8:152:2 writes that a newspaper printed on Shabbat is nolad gamur and is muktzeh. However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 31:24 writes that a newspaper printed on Shabbat is permissible to read. Gilyonot MReyach Nichoch 5775 Parshat Bo issue 225 p. 14 Rav Shlomo Aviner explains that a newspaper isn’t nolad since it is just paper with ink. Nishmat Avraham second edition p. 576 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman that a fax that came in on Shabbat is nolad on Shabbat but a newspaper made on Shabbat isn't nolad since there's no muktzeh on a non-Jew's property. (Magen Avraham 308:15 and 501:12 writes that a utensil made by goy on Shabbat is nolad and is muktzeh even though it belonged to a non-Jew, but the Levush 505:1 argues that even for nolad there’s no muktzeh for a non-Jew’s property.)</ref>
## Amira L'akum (lit: telling a non-Jew [to do forbidden activity on one's behalf])
### Many poskim forbid ordering a newspaper that is printed and delivered on Shabbat, while some are lenient if most of the subscribers are non-Jewish.<ref>*The Maharam Shick O.C. 123 addresses the question of subscribing to a newspaper that is printed on Shabbat. He says that although there is a dispute whether or not one may ask one non-Jew to ask another non-Jew to do a melacha on Shabbat, everyone should agree here that it is permitted, since the workers in the printing station don’t know that they are printing for Jews. Nonetheless, he concludes that this is not enough to rely on. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 214) writes that the Maharam’s logic would not apply nowadays, because the workers in the printing company know that there are Jews in the city for whom they are printing.
*Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted by The Sanctity of Shabbos p. 83), Mishneh Halachot 4:47, and Be’eir Moshe 6:66 agree that ordering a newspaper for Shabbat is forbidden because of Amirah LeNochri. Rav Hershel Schachter (oral communication, [https://halachipedia.com/documents/5773/6.pdf Halachipedia Article 5773 #6]) said it would be forbidden even if one orders a weekly subscription that includes Shabbat.
*In another context, the Maharam Shick (O.C. 324) writes that it is not similar to the case of Shulchan Aruch O.C. 276:2 where halacha assumes that the non-Jew’s intent depends on the majority of the people for whom the melacha is done. In our case, every single print is for a specific need, and if the Jew didn’t subscribe, they would print less. Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 31:25, however, quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach who argues that it is permitted to order a newspaper to be delivered on Shabbat if most of the subscribers are non-Jews because the additional printing is considered a grama, and perhaps the newspapers printed for Jews are nullified by the majority. Nonetheless, Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata adds that if a non-Jew brought the newspaper through an area where there is no eruv, one may not read it on Shabbat.</ref>
==Summary of Leniencies==

# Secular Wisdom
## It is a debate whether one may read recipes or a cookbook on Shabbat.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 29:48 writes that it is included in the prohibition of mimso chefsacha. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach thought that if one’s intent is purely to see how the food tastes better and isn’t concerned with how to cook it, maybe it would be considered a book of wisdom. Halacha Brurah (307:90, Amirah Lnochri v. 2 p. 329) writes that based on Rav Shlomo Zalman it is forbidden for Sephardim who hold it is forbidden to learn a science book on Shabbat. He also quotes Beer Moshe 6:67 who was lenient since people are only looking at the recipes for pleasure. Halacha Brurah still holds that it is forbidden. Listen to [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=3230 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] and [http://blog.webyeshiva.org/halacha-yomit-reading-cookbooks-on-shabbat/ Rabbi Brovender] explained this halacha.</ref>
# Reading for Pleasure
## It is preferable not to read sad things that may bring the reader to tears, such as holocaust stories.<ref> Mishna Brurah 307:3; Ketzot Hashulchan 107:43. </ref>
# Written in Hebrew
# Scanning (without verbalizing)
# Reading for a Mitzvah
## It is permitted to look at a synagogue member's list and read from it in order to check whose turn it is to receive the honor of reading the Torah.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.5 </ref>
## It is permitted to read mitzvah announcements on [[Shabbat]]. However, it is forbidden to make business mitzvah announcements which include the price of an item.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.8 </ref>
## There is room to be lenient to permit reading the caption underneath the picture of a rabbi.<ref> Rav Moshe Halevi in Menuchat Ahava 1 page 236 cites some rabbis who allow it since it enhances your fear of G-d but nevertheless says one should be strict even in this. </ref>
# Lists (not full sentences)
## One is permitted to read street signs on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen (the Shabbos Home V1 pg 56 footnote 9) cites from the Megillat Sefer who infers from Rashi shabbat 149a that the prohibition of reading captions only applies to a "סיפור דברים" (i.e. narrative). Thus, it would be permitted to read something that was just a single noun without a verb. See also Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, pg 197). </ref>
## It is permitted to read the ingredient list on food products on [[Shabbat]].<ref> See previous note. The reasoning of the Megillat Sefer applies here as well. See also Yalkut Yosef 307:12. Presumably, one could also make the case that this is considered to be for the sake of a mitzvah in that it promotes healthy eating. </ref>
## It is permitted to look in a phone book to find a specific name and address on [[Shabbat]].<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307:13 </ref>
## It is permitted to read store signs or brand names on [[Shabbat]]. However, those who are strict in this matter shall be blessed.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.11 </ref>

==Giving Invitations==
# Technically, if the only time one see's his/her friends is on [[Shabbat]], one may give out wedding or bar mitzvah invitations on [[Shabbat]]. One must make sure that the distribution of invitations does not cause one to violate the prohibition of [[carrying on Shabbat]]. However, it is absolutely preferable to to give out mitzvah invitations during the week.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.21 </ref>
==Links==
# [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/761976/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-newspaper-on-shabbos/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz's Ten Minute Halacha on Reading Newspapers on Shabbat]

==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}

Reading on Shabbat

2024-07-26T02:12:21Z

Gsilver2: /* Newspapers, Advertisements, Business */

{{Good}}
[[Image:Newspaper.jpg|right|200px]]There are certain reading materials that chazal prohibited one from reading on shabbat, either because they were concerned that one might come to erase (and thereby violate the melacha of [[mochek]]), or because they are inappropriate for the holy atmosphere of the day. This broad category of prohibited reading is referred to as shtarei hedyotot.

==Introduction==

# There are really 3 distinct categories of prohibited reading on shabbat:
## Shtarei hedyotot (lit: documents of the masses)<ref>The gemara shabbat 116b cites a beraita in which Rebbe Nechemya states that one is prohibited from reading even books of ketuvim on shabbat lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot. While we hold like the chochomim who think that reading ketuvim was only prohibited during the time when people would otherwise go hear the rav's drasha on shabbat, in order to encourage attendance to the shiur, it is nonetheless instructive that went so far as to prohibit reading parts of Torah on shabbat. </ref>
### Some say that this refers to business documents only, while others are more expansive.<ref>There is quite a range of opinions regarding what exactly classifies under the category of "shtarei hedyotot" (lit: documents of the masses). Rashi on shabbat 149a implies that they are business documents (של מקח וממכר), which would be very reasonable why chazal prohibited reading them on shabbat. Shabbat is not meant to be a day of conducting business or even of looking into one's business affairs. However, Rashi on shabbat 116b implies that this category also includes letters that don't seem to have any business connection whatsoever (אגרות השלוחות למצוא חפץ). Tosfot 116b (s.v. v'kol sheken) seems to understand that Rashi initially thought the category was more expansive (rashi 166b), but then retracted this position to limit shtarei hedyotot to business documents (rashi 149b). Either way, the Ri cited in tosfot clearly takes the position that only business documents are included in the prohibition of shtarei hedyotot.</ref>
## Guest lists and Menus<ref>The mishna shabbat 148b says that one may not read a guest list or menu. The gemara 149a cites a debate whether the concern is that one will come to erase some names, or whether one will come to read "shtarei hedyotot". The Shulchan Aruch 307:12 paskens this gemara. We are concerned for both opinions in the gemara, and therefore the only permitted way to read such a list is to engrave it in a wall, since this is difficult to erase (so no concern of שמא ימחוק) and also not easily confused with a document (so no concern of שמא יקרא בשטרי הדיוטות).</ref>
## Captions to Pictures<ref>The gemara 149a cites a beraita which prohibits reading the writing underneath images. Rashi explains that this refers to paintings or murals on a wall, such as those depicting the battle between Dovid and Goliath, or depicting various animals. There is a debate whether the reason for this prohibition is lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot (rashi 149a s.v. asur), lest one come to erase the caption (Ran page 63b in the dapei harif), or because it itself is considered shtarei hedyotot (Meiri, beit habechira 149a). Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 307:51) adds that the Beit Yosef seems to hold that way as well. Eliya Rabba 307:37 writes that the practical difference between Ran and Rashi would be if the caption is engraved, where the concern that you may come to erase wouldn't exist. </ref>
# It is a debate amongst the rishonim how to extrapolate from these 3 categories to other types of reading.
## Some prohibit all secular reading.<ref>The Rambam Peiriush Hamishnayos 23:2 prohibits reading any secular literature on shabbat, only permitting Torah literature. </ref>
## Others are much more permissive in their approach.<ref>The Rosh (shabbat 23:1) understands that the category of shtarei hedyotot itself is limited to business documents. Nonetheless, he prohibits reading letters since if reading captions to pictures is prohibited lest one read shtarei hedyotot, then certainly reading letters should be prohibited as well. Nonetheless, he does not seem to go as far as the Rambam in prohibiting all non-Torah literature. </ref>

==Reason for the Prohibition==

# There are two main approaches explaining why shtarei hedyotot are prohibited to read:
## Violation of the pasuk "ממצוא חפציך ודבר דבר" (lit: seeking your engagements, and speaking about matters)<ref>Sefer yeshaya 58:13</ref>, which enjoins us not to spend shabbat dealing with our weekday affairs.<ref>Rosh 23:1 gives this reason</ref>
## Decree lest one come to erase.<ref>Rambam hilchot shabbat 23:19 gives this reason. </ref>
# Possible Nafka Minot (lit: practical differences between the two reasons)
## According to the first reason (not speaking or dealing with weekday activity on shabbat), then perhaps we would be more inclined to permit the following:
### Scanning (without reading aloud)<ref>The Rosh 23:1 cites a debate in the rishonim regarding this question. Some [unnamed] rabbis permitted it, whereas the Rabbenu Yona prohibited it. The Rosh brings a proof from the Tosefta to this side, since there the language used is that one may not be מסתכל (lit: look) at captions underneath pictures, indicating that even scanning is prohibited. One may have assumed that the Rosh would be lenient given that he thinks the reason for the prohibition is from ודבר דבר, nonetheless he prefers the strict approach. This somewhat pokes a hole in the idea that scanning is really a nafka minah between the reasons of the Rosh and the Rambam. </ref>
#### The halacha follows the strict approach.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 307:13 says that one may not scan shtarei hedyotot even without reading them aloud.</ref>
### Pleasure Reading<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 301:2 says that children who enjoy running on shabbat are allowed to run, even though running is generally prohibited on shabbat. He says that "so too it is permitted to see anything that gives one pleasure". This is very vague. Perhaps he means that one is allowed to run in order to see a sight that they find enjoyable (see Mishna Brurah 301:6 who understands it this way). However, the Magen Avraham 301:4 understands that this refers to a different leniency. Namely, that one is allowed to read captions underneath images on shabbat if it gives one pleasure. This would provide a major leniency in terms of reading material on shabbat that would otherwise be prohibited.</ref>
#### The minhag is to be lenient on this issue, despite the objections of many poskim.<ref>Many achronim are not happy with this leniency of the Magen Avraham (see for instance, shaar hatziyon 301:7, who cites the Chemed Moshe and Maamar Mordechai as rejecting the Magen Avraham). Nonetheless, the common practice in many Jewish communities seems to be to take a very lax approach towards shtarei hedyotot. Perhaps this Magen Avraham is a limud zchus on this practice. </ref>
### Reading Secular Wisdom<ref>Mishna [[Shabbat]] 148b writes that one may not count the number of guests from a list on [[Shabbat]]. Abaye in the Gemara 149a explains that this is a rabbinic restriction so as not to come to read a Shtar Hedyot on [[Shabbat]]. What is a Shtar Hedyot which one may not read on [[Shabbat]]? Rashi 116b s.v. Shtar explains it to be financial calculations or letters. The Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot [[Shabbat]] 23:2) also explains Shtar Hedyot to mean letters and the reason for this is that on [[Shabbat]] one may only read Navi and it’s explanations and not even a book of wisdom and science. Bet Yosef 307:17 quotes the Baal HaMoer (43a s.v. VeHa) who agrees.

However, the Rashba (149a s.v. VeLeInyan) explains Shtar Hedyot as a business documents. This is also the definition of the Ri quoted in Tosfot 116b d"h "kol sheken" and the Rosh (see there where he writes that reading shtarei hedyotot is a problem of mimtzo cheftecha from Yishayahu 58:13) [[Shabbat]] 23:1 (Rashi himself on 149a seems to say this also, and tosfot 149a d"h "shtarei" questions Rashi. see Netziv in Meromei Sadeh 149 for a reconciliation of Rashi). Therefore, Sh”t Rashba 7:288 rules that it’s permitted to read books of wisdom and medicine and quotes the Ramban who agreed. [Bet Yosef 307:17 learns this out from another Teshuva of the Rashba 1:772 where he says that one may analyze an astrological tool called the Istrolav.]</ref>
#### According to Sephardim, one should only learn Torah on [[Shabbat]] and one may not learn secular subjects such as science. According to Ashkenazim, many are lenient to allow learning secular wisdom on [[Shabbat]], but a pious person should refrain.<ref name=":0">*S”A 307:17 rules like the Rambam who says that on [[Shabbat]] one should only learn Torah and not books of other wisdoms, however, he mentions that some are lenient. Mishna Brurah 307:65 writes that the minhag is like the Rashba, however, a pious person (Yireh Shamayim) should be strict. [http://www.ravaviner.com/2010/01/studying-secular-subjects-on-shabbat.html Rav Aviner] holds like the Mishna Brurah. 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 982) uses a stricter language saying strictly speaking pleasure reading is permitted but it’s best to refrain from any secular books.
*Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:49 extends the Mishna Brurah even to permit reading professional literature, journals that does not include any business, and textbooks. He notes that Rav Shlomo Zalman (Nishmat Avraham 307:5) is quoted to say that a doctor could learn medicine on [[Shabbat]] but a medical student may not.
*However, Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]] vol 2, pg 214, 626) rules like Shulchan Aruch that one should only learn Torah on [[Shabbat]] and is only lenient to allow a medical student who has a test after [[Shabbat]] and is pressured for time to study medicine (except for the study of surgery) on [[Shabbat]]. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/Display.asp?ClipDate=8/5/2009 Rabbi Mansour] on DailyHalacha.com agrees. Menuchat Ahava (vol 1, pg 234) writes that the halacha follows Shulchan Aruch but one doesn’t have to protest those who are lenient because they have what to rely on.
*It's interesting to note that the Rama (Sh"t Rama 7) writes that he only studied philosophy from Moreh Nevuchim on [[Shabbat]] and [[Yom Tov]] when others were taking walks.</ref>
### Reading for the Sake of a Mitzvah<ref>The Magen Avraham 307:16 cites the Bach who prohibits a shamash (lit: helper) from reading the guest list on shabbat, because even though there is no concern that he will erase it - since he doesn't have the authority to erase it as he isn't the ba'al habayit (lit: owner of the house) - nonetheless he is prohibited because of the other concern that he might come to read shtarei hedyotot. However, the Magen Avraham himself argues, and holds that since based on the pasuk of ממצוא חפציך we only prohibit weekday dealings that are not for the sake of a mitzvah (see gemara shabbat 150a), we can allow the shamash to read the guest list since this meal is for the sake of the mitzvah (eating a seudah on shabbat). The Magen Avraham here seems to be holding that the reason for the prohibition of shtarei hedyotot is like the first approach cited above (in accordance with the Rosh), and not like the second approach (that of the Rambam, that it's a decree lest one come to erase).</ref>

==Learning Secular Subjects on Shabbat==
# As mentioned above, according to Sephardim, one should only learn Torah on [[Shabbat]] and not secular subjects.
# However, according to Ashkenazim, one may learn secular wisdom on [[Shabbat]], although a pious person should refrain.<ref name=":0" />
## One may read Jewish history texts that inspire mussar and Yirat Hashem.<ref> S”A 307:16 writes that secular literature, romance, and history of wars are forbidden to read on [[Shabbat]] and even during the week because it is considered an activity of scoffers (Moshav Letzim) and it is like following idolater’s practices (Al Tifnu El HaElilim) and reading romance is also a violation of provoking the Yetzer Hara. Mishna Brurah 307:58 writes that Yosephon (not the same as Josephus) and a few other Jewish history books aren’t included in this prohibition because one learns from them ethics and fear of heaven (Yirat Hashem). Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:11 writes that one shouldn't study history on [[Shabbat]], however, one may read Jewish History books which inspire Yirat Shamayim and have Mussar in them, such as Shevet Yehuda, Sefer Yuchsin, Divrei HaYamim of Ri HaKohen, or Yosefon (which is not the same as Josephus). </ref>
## Many authorities forbid reading novels on [[Shabbat]]. Some are lenient for pleasure reading.<ref>S”A 307:16 writes that secular literature, romance, and history of wars are forbidden to read on [[Shabbat]] and even during the week because it is considered an activity of scoffers (Moshav Letzim) and it is like following idolater’s practices (Al Tifnu El HaElilim) and reading romance is also a violation of provoking the Yetzer Hara. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (quoted by Menucha Shelemah pg 226) says that it is forbidden to read narratives and dramas on [[Shabbat]] because they do not inspire to Yirat Shamayim. Similarly, [[Shabbos]] Home (Rabbi Simcha Cohen, vol 1, pg 57-8) writes that the minhag is lenient by science, math, and medicine but not history and fictional novels which are not considered ‘wisdom’, however, one who fears heaven should refrain from any secular wisdom on [[Shabbat]]. However, 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 982) (based on Rama 307:1 and Mishna Brurah 307:65) writes that strictly speaking pleasure reading is permitted but concludes that it’s best to refrain from any secular book on [[Shabbat]]. 39 Melachos adds that obviously if there’s objectionable material it’s forbidden to read on [[Shabbat]] or the week. </ref> Some are lenient if it is written in hebrew<ref>The Rama 307:16 says that the prohibition of reading fiction novels about war on shabbat is only if they are written in other languages, but if it is written in lashon hakodesh (Hebrew) then it would be permitted. The reason is explained by the Rama in the Darchei Moshe 307:8 that reading a novel in Hebrew will help one better be able to learn Torah (presumably by improving their Hebrew language skills), and also because the language itself has intrinsic holiness. The Rama brings a proof to this idea from Tosfot (shabbat 116b s.v. v'kol sheken) who says that it's prohibited to read novels that are written in "לשון לעז" (lit: the lingu franca), which seems to imply that it would be permitted if written in Hebrew. </ref> but others disagree.<ref>The Mishna Brurah 307:64 cites from the Agudah, Taz, Bach, Gra, and many other achronim, who all objected to this leniency of the Rama. They understand that just because the novel is written in Hebrew does not make it permitted to read on shabbat.</ref>
# Concerning studying for a secular test on [[Shabbat]], see the page on [[Hachana#Study Torah and other subjects|Hachana]].
==Reading Mail==
# In general it’s forbidden to read letters on [[Shabbat]], even of a social or business correspondence.<ref>The Rosh (shabbat 23:1) prohibits reading letters because he thinks that just like chazal decreed against reading guest lists or menus lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot, so too they prohibited all non-critical reading. Rashi (shabbat 116b s.v. shtarei) seems to hold that these letters are themselves shtarei hedyotot. Other rishonim disagreed and held that one could read these letters on shabbat. The Ran (64b in the dapei harif) cites from the Ramban who also permitted reading letters on shabbat, as they are not included in the prohibition of shtarei hedyotot. Nonetheless, the Shulchan Aruch 307:13 holds like the machmir view that one may not read them on shabbat. He seems to hold like Rashi that these letters are forbidden to read because they are themselves shtarei hedyotot. However, the Mishna Brurah 307:52 seems to understand that these letters are actually prohibited lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot (i.e. like the Rosh). Regardless, they are prohibited.</ref>
# However, if a letter of social correspondence arrived on [[Shabbat]], it’s permissible to read it silently (without moving one’s lips), because it’s possible that it contains crucial information.<ref>It is clear from Tosfot (shabbat 116b s.v. v'kol sheken) that the common minhag in Ashkenaz was to read letters on shabbat that people would send to one another in the mail. However, the practice seemed difficult to justify given that these letters seemingly should have been prohibited to read, either as shtarei hedyotot themselves (Rashi), or as part of the decree not to read other documents lest one come to read shtarei hedyotot (Rosh). So how do we explain the practice to read letters that arrived on shabbat? Tosfot cites the Ri that permitted reading these letters because perhaps they contain some important information that could lead to pikuach nefesh (lit: saving a life). Tosfot then cites Rabbenu Tam who permits reading them even if one knows with certainty that they don't contain any critical information, because the very fact that one knows what it is in the letter is reason to permit reading it. Why should this be? Tosfot doesn't explain, but presumably the idea is that if one knows what is written in the letter then there is less of a concern that one is going to erase it, and Tosfot is going like the Rambam, that the reason for these prohibitions is a decree lest one come to erase. Shulchan Aruch 307:14 paskens like the Ri, that if one doesn't know what the letter contains, then it is permissible to read. However, since he isn't convinced that the Ri is really correct, he is machmir to only allow one to scan the letter without reading it aloud, as by doing this one also is relying upon the leniency that perhaps scanning isn't prohibited at all (like the Rosh 23:1 cited in the name of unspecified rabbis - "איכא רבוותא").</ref>
## Some suggest that nowadays this leniency no longer applies, since if something was truly urgent, it would not be communicated via mail, but rather via phone or some other medium.<ref>Sh"t Iggerot Moshe 5:21:5 writes that since we no longer get any urgent news in the [[mail]], this doesn't really apply anymore. Tiltulei [[shabbat]] teshuva 29, Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen (The [[Shabbos]] Home 5 footnote 14), Beer Moshe 6:66, and Rav Avigdor Neventzal (Yerushalayim Bimoadeha, [[Shabbat]] Kodesh 2 page 260) all agree to be stringent.</ref>
# However, business letters may not be read on [[Shabbat]] at all.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 29:45. </ref>
==Newspapers, Advertisements, Business==
#Newspapers
##Some say that it is permitted to read newspapers on Shabbat, skipping the business sections and advertisements.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 29:48, 31:25. A Guide to Practical Halacha (Shabbat v. 3 p. 155 n. 53) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who allowed reading the newspaper on Shabbat especially in a time of war, while others hold it is forbidden. Either way, he says that it is forbidden to read the advertisements, business and financial articles, stock listings, real estate listings, and classified ads. The Mishna Brurah 307:63 cites from the Shvut Yaakov who allowed reading them for the same reason as the Ri allowed reading mail (i.e. perhaps there is some critical information). One could perhaps also argue that much of the newspaper can be considered like books of wisdom, as there is much one can learn about the world (sociology, history, science, politics, etc.) from reading it. It is well known that the Netziv used to read the Jewish newspaper (entitled "Hamagid") on shabbat, merely scanning the words and not reading aloud (seemingly paskening against the Shulchan Aruch who is strict about scanning). See the Torah Temimah's autobiography (Mekor Baruch chelek 4) who cites this fact about his uncle, the Netziv. Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen (Shabbos Home V1 pg 64 footnote 14) cites from the Yaavetz another potential reason to be lenient based on the leniency of the Magen Avraham to allow pleasure reading.</ref> Others prohibit reading them because all the sections are mixed together.<ref>Mishna Brurah 307:63</ref>
#Advertisements
##It is forbidden to read a catalogue of advertisements or anything that has any bearing on finances.<ref> Mishna Brurah 307:63, Yalkut Yosef 307.22, Rav Yisrael Belsky in Shulchan Halevi page 90, as well as Menuchat Ahava (vol 1, pg 233) who says this prohibition even applies if you are shopping for a mitzva-related item such as the [[arba minim]]. </ref>
## It is permissible to read a pamphlet that has both Torah and advertisements, as long as one is careful to not look at the advertisements.<ref> Hazon Ovadia, Volume 5, Page 72; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Pages 115-116 </ref>
# Newspaper Printed on Shabbat
## Nolad (lit: created)<ref>This refers to something which came into being on shabbat, and is therefore considered muktzah.</ref>
### Some poskim consider a newspaper printed on Shabbat to be nolad and forbidden to read. Others disagree. Furthermore, since it was in the property of the non-Jew, it might not be muktzeh.<ref>Rivevot Efraim 8:152:2 writes that a newspaper printed on Shabbat is nolad gamur and is muktzeh. However, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 31:24 writes that a newspaper printed on Shabbat is permissible to read. Gilyonot MReyach Nichoch 5775 Parshat Bo issue 225 p. 14 Rav Shlomo Aviner explains that a newspaper isn’t nolad since it is just paper with ink. Nishmat Avraham second edition p. 576 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman that a fax that came in on Shabbat is nolad on Shabbat but a newspaper made on Shabbat isn't nolad since there's no muktzeh on a non-Jew's property. (Magen Avraham 308:15 and 501:12 writes that a utensil made by goy on Shabbat is nolad and is muktzeh even though it belonged to a non-Jew, but the Levush 505:1 argues that even for nolad there’s no muktzeh for a non-Jew’s property.)</ref>
## Amira L'akum (lit: telling a non-Jew [to do forbidden activity on one's behalf])
### Many poskim forbid ordering a newspaper that is printed and delivered on Shabbat, while some are lenient if most of the subscribers are non-Jewish.<ref>*The Maharam Shick O.C. 123 addresses the question of subscribing to a newspaper that is printed on Shabbat. He says that although there is a dispute whether or not one may ask one non-Jew to ask another non-Jew to do a melacha on Shabbat, everyone should agree here that it is permitted, since the workers in the printing station don’t know that they are printing for Jews. Nonetheless, he concludes that this is not enough to rely on. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 214) writes that the Maharam’s logic would not apply nowadays, because the workers in the printing company know that there are Jews in the city for whom they are printing.
*Rav Moshe Feinstein (quoted by The Sanctity of Shabbos p. 83), Mishneh Halachot 4:47, and Be’eir Moshe 6:66 agree that ordering a newspaper for Shabbat is forbidden because of Amirah LeNochri. Rav Hershel Schachter (oral communication, [https://halachipedia.com/documents/5773/6.pdf Halachipedia Article 5773 #6]) said it would be forbidden even if one orders a weekly subscription that includes Shabbat.
*In another context, the Maharam Shick (O.C. 324) writes that it is not similar to the case of Shulchan Aruch O.C. 276:2 where halacha assumes that the non-Jew’s intent depends on the majority of the people for whom the melacha is done. In our case, every single print is for a specific need, and if the Jew didn’t subscribe, they would print less. Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 31:25, however, quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach who argues that it is permitted to order a newspaper to be delivered on Shabbat if most of the subscribers are non-Jews because the additional printing is considered a grama, and perhaps the newspapers printed for Jews are nullified by the majority. Nonetheless, Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata adds that if a non-Jew brought the newspaper through an area where there is no eruv, one may not read it on Shabbat.</ref>
==Summary of Leniencies==

# Secular Wisdom
## It is a debate whether one may read recipes or a cookbook on Shabbat.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 29:48 writes that it is included in the prohibition of mimso chefsacha. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach thought that if one’s intent is purely to see how the food tastes better and isn’t concerned with how to cook it, maybe it would be considered a book of wisdom. Halacha Brurah (307:90, Amirah Lnochri v. 2 p. 329) writes that based on Rav Shlomo Zalman it is forbidden for Sephardim who hold it is forbidden to learn a science book on Shabbat. He also quotes Beer Moshe 6:67 who was lenient since people are only looking at the recipes for pleasure. Halacha Brurah still holds that it is forbidden. Listen to [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=3230 Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com] and [http://blog.webyeshiva.org/halacha-yomit-reading-cookbooks-on-shabbat/ Rabbi Brovender] explained this halacha.</ref>
# Reading for Pleasure
## It is preferable not to read sad things that may bring the reader to tears, such as holocaust stories.<ref> Mishna Brurah 307:3; Ketzot Hashulchan 107:43. </ref>
# Written in Hebrew
# Scanning (without verbalizing)
# Reading for a Mitzvah
## It is permitted to look at a synagogue member's list and read from it in order to check whose turn it is to receive the honor of reading the Torah.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.5 </ref>
## It is permitted to read mitzvah announcements on [[Shabbat]]. However, it is forbidden to make business mitzvah announcements which include the price of an item.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.8 </ref>
## There is room to be lenient to permit reading the caption underneath the picture of a rabbi.<ref> Rav Moshe Halevi in Menuchat Ahava 1 page 236 cites some rabbis who allow it since it enhances your fear of G-d but nevertheless says one should be strict even in this. </ref>
# Lists (not full sentences)
## One is permitted to read street signs on [[Shabbat]].<ref>Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen (the Shabbos Home V1 pg 56 footnote 9) cites from the Megillat Sefer who infers from Rashi shabbat 149a that the prohibition of reading captions only applies to a "סיפור דברים" (i.e. narrative). Thus, it would be permitted to read something that was just a single noun without a verb. See also Yalkut Yosef ([[Shabbat]], vol 2, pg 197). </ref>
## It is permitted to read the ingredient list on food products on [[Shabbat]].<ref> See previous note. The reasoning of the Megillat Sefer applies here as well. See also Yalkut Yosef 307:12. Presumably, one could also make the case that this is considered to be for the sake of a mitzvah in that it promotes healthy eating. </ref>
## It is permitted to look in a phone book to find a specific name and address on [[Shabbat]].<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307:13 </ref>
## It is permitted to read store signs or brand names on [[Shabbat]]. However, those who are strict in this matter shall be blessed.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.11 </ref>

==Giving Invitations==
# Technically, if the only time one see's his/her friends is on [[Shabbat]], one may give out wedding or bar mitzvah invitations on [[Shabbat]]. One must make sure that the distribution of invitations does not cause one to violate the prohibition of [[carrying on Shabbat]]. However, it is absolutely preferable to to give out mitzvah invitations during the week.<ref> Yalkut Yosef 307.21 </ref>
==Links==
# [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/761976/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/ten-minute-halacha-newspaper-on-shabbos/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz's Ten Minute Halacha on Reading Newspapers on Shabbat]

==Sources==
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
{{Shabbat Table}}