Halakhah su Esodo 20:78

It is good to recite the passage of the Binding (Genesis 22:1-19), the passage of the Manna (Exodus 16:4-36), the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-13), and the passages of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:1-17), tribute-offering (Leviticus 2:1-13), peace-offering (Leviticus 3:1-17), sin-offering (Vayikra 4:27-35), and guilt-offering. Rem"a: But only in private is it permissible to recite the Ten Commandments each day: it is forbidden to recite them in congregation (Rashb"a Responsum 144).

Rav Hisda said, “if someone has eaten meat, he is forbidden to eat cheese, but if he ate cheese first, he is permitted to eat meat,¹⁶⁸Ibid., 105a. and Rav Hisda’s view is the accepted view.¹⁶⁹So the Tur and Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 89. But surely he said, “He is forbidden to eat cheese until another meal.” Indeed, for a whole day is a more stringent practice, and thus it was when Mar Ukba’s practice was to wait only until the next meal. For Mar Ukba said, “I am in this matter like ‘Hametz the son of Wine,’ for if my father would eat meat he was fastidious and wouldn’t eat cheese till the same time the next day. But while I won’t eat it at the same meal, I’ll eat it at the next meal.¹⁷⁰B. Hullin 105a. And the custom of Mar Ukba’s father to wait for a whole day is extra stringent, so accordingly we follow Mar Ukba’s practice, even though he said, “I am in this matter like Hametz the son of Wine.” And so it is our practice to wait just until the next meal. Hence, it is not sufficient just to wipe one’s mouth or to wash one’s hands, since meat is not digested after the first meal for at least six hours, and meat caught in between the teeth is still meat, as it is said, “The meat was still between their teeth.”¹⁷¹Nu 11:33, a reference to the quail meat God over-fed the Israelites in response to their complaining in the desert. But if one eats cheese, he is permitted to eat meat without any delay at all. He only has to wipe his mouth whether it’s day or night, and wash his hands if it’s at night, but not if it’s during the day, nor does it make a difference whether it’s game or meat from a domesticated animal.¹⁷²An so also the Tur and Shulhan Arukh Y.D. 89:1. Poultry and cheese are eaten “like an epicurean,”¹⁷³B. Hullin 104b, which Rashi explains to mean “without any qualms,” as libertines eat. which I found in the explanation of the Arukh to mean without wiping one’s mouth or washing their hands whether in the day or in the night.¹⁷⁴Sefer Ha-Arukh, the Dictionary of R. Natan ben Yehiel of Rome (11th century). The reason given was that mayim ahronim are an obligation, because a person eats salt after his meal, which contains Sodomite salt that blinds the eyes, even one grain in a kor of regular salt,¹⁷⁵Sodomite salt – salt from the Dead Sea. Potent stuff. Even in a mixture of one grain to a kor (about 530 liters) of regular salt would blind you ! It was customary to eat a little salt for “dessert,” presumably to “kill” anything potentially harmful in the food one has just eaten. See Rabbi Levi Cooper, “World of Our Sages: Salty Hands,” <http: www.pardes.org.il="" weekly-talmud="" 2009-02-12.php="">. though no blessing is required, except for someone who is saying a blessing over washing dirty hands. For just as a polluted priest was unfit for the Temple service, someone whose hands are polluted is unfit to say a blessing. What does it mean to be “polluted”? Anything that is not fit to be brought near the altar, such as an animal or birds, but whatever is fit does not require washing, since it isn’t something that’s polluted. However, there are some among the great teachers who are of the opinion that anything can be polluted.

One also has to careful when about to say birkat ha-mazon to remove the knife from the table. The reason for this practice is because the table is called an “altar,” and just as on an altar we have been warned not to brandish something made of iron over it, as it is said, “do not build it [an altar] of hewn stones, etc.”¹⁹⁴Ex 20:22. The rule of Torah is that if one makes it into an altar of hewn stones with a tool of silver or flint, it is permitted. For the point of the prohibition is not against it being hewn, but rather because it is hewn with something made of iron, i.e., a sword, and Torah kept it far from the tabernacle, when it is written: “gold, silver, and copper,”¹⁹⁵Ex 25:3. but does not mention iron there. And likewise with the sanctuary it is written, “No hammers or axe or any iron tool was heard in the House when it was being built.”¹⁹⁶I Kings 6:7. The reason is because that is the power of Esau with what he was blessed from his father’s mouth; this is what is meant by “By the sword you shall live,”¹⁹⁷Gen 27:40. and it is written, “but Esau I hated.”¹⁹⁸Mal 1:3. Therefore it is kept far from the sanctuary. And likewise at the table we have been warned to remove the sword from it, because the sword is something destructive¹⁹⁹The pun ha-herev hu ha-mahriv is lost in the translation. and the source of destruction, the opposite of peace, and it does not belong in a place of blessing, i.e., peace. For indeed the altar and the table prolongs a person’s days, while a sword shortens them, and it makes no sense to brandish something that shortens over something that prolongs life.²⁰⁰Mekhilta Yitro (end).

The second meal is the aspect of “zakhor” – “Remember!”²⁶⁴From the commandment in the 10 commandments to remember the Shabbat in Ex 20:8. which is Rahamim – Compassion, for whom we make the Kiddush of the Day, which is called Kiddusha Raba – “the Great Kiddush”²⁶⁵B. Pesahim 106a. because at night – shamor!, and in the day zakhor! which is Compassion, and the meaning of “for today is the Sabbath of the Lord.”²⁶⁶Ex 16:25.

Another interpretation: He blessed it with light. When the sun set on the evening of Shabbat, the Holy One Blessed be He sought to hide the light and gave honor to Shabbat, as it is written, “and God blessed it, etc.”²⁸⁹Gen 2:3.With what did He bless it? With light. Everything began to praise the Holy One Blessed be He, as it is written, “Everything under the heavens, He made it sing.”²⁹⁰Job 37:3: Literally, “He lets it loose [yishrehu] beneath the entire heavens; His lightning [oro] to the ends of the earth.” The midrash treats yishrehu as if it were from the word “shirah” – “song.” Why? “His light [spread] to the ends of the earth.”²⁹¹Genesis Rabbah 11:2.

Now that I have explained to you the topic of Kiddush, I will explain the topic of Havdalah, so that nothing will be missing from your table whether it is an ordinary day or Shabbat, for indeed Havdalah is a way of honoring Shabbat, to remember the day of Shabbat both when it comes and goes, as our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash, “’Remember the Sabbath day’²⁷⁹Ex 20:8. – remember it both at its entrance and its departure.”²⁸⁰Maimonides, Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, M”A 155, and in Hilkhot Shabbat 29a. And know that Havdalah with its four blessings is hinted at in the first parshah of Genesis: the first blessing – borei pri ha-gafen – “who creates the fruit of the vine” – is hinted at in the first verse in the word ha-aretz – “the land”²⁸¹Gen 1:1. – which is the garden and the vine in the garden, and this is the wine preserved in its grapes from the six days of creation.²⁸²B. Berakhot 34b. The wine that will be served at the messianic banquet at the end of time comes has been preserved in the grapes of the first vine God created in the six days of creation.The second blessing: “atzei besamim”– “spices from a tree”²⁸³Technically, one needs to specify in the blessing the type of spice: atzei besamim – “spices from a tree,” such as cinnamon or nutmeg; esvei besamim, “spices from grasses,” such as mint or tarragon. However, taking into account that not everybody knows how to tell the difference between types of spices, the more inclusive formulation minei besamim– “different kinds of spices” was instituted, to avoid having people say the wrong blessing (Chavel). is hinted in the expression, “a wind [ru’ah] from God sweeping over the water,”²⁸⁴Gen 1:1. because smell – re’ah – is sensed by means of the wind – ru’ah. The third blessing: bore’ me’orei ha-esh – “who creates the lights of fire,” is what is written in “Yehi ‘or” – “Let there be light!”²⁸⁵Gen 1:3: “’Or” and “me’orei” are from the same Hebrew root that means “light.” The fourth blessing – Ha-mavdil – “Who separates” is what is written in “and God separated [va-yavdel] the light.”²⁸⁶Gen 1:4. And just as we found the act of separation – Havdalah – in the Holy One Blessed be He at the beginning of His rule with the creation of the world and its renewal, so we found in Him the sanctification – kiddush²⁸⁷Its root, kadosh, in its adjectival and verbal forms means literally to “be set apart” or “to set apart.” – of the day of Shabbat on which work is forbidden, which is written: “God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy [va-yikadesh ‘oto].”²⁸⁸Gen 2:3. What follows is more or less a quotation from Genesis Rabbah Parshah 11, with some omissions. He “blessed” it providing an extra portion of the manna for it and “declared it holy” by prohibiting the gathering of manna on it.

They taught that R. Simon bar Yohai says, Shabbat came before the Holy One Blessed be He and said, “Master of the Universe, everything has a partner, but I don’t have a partner. I am astonished.” The Holy One Blessed be He replied, “The assembly of the people of Israel shall be your partner.” And when they stood at Mt. Sinai, He said to them, “Remember what I said to Shabbat. The assembly of Israel shall be your partner. So I am saying, “Remember Shabbat and make it holy.”²⁹⁸Ex 20:8: “make it holy” – likadshehu also has the connotation of marriage, as in the expression kiddushin. So in effect God is saying, “Remember Shabbat, that you’re married to him!”

Also it says there:²⁹⁹In Genesis Rabbah 16:8. “And He placed him [Adam] in the Garden of Eden,”³⁰⁰Gen 2:15. the Holy One Blessed be He gave Adam the commandments of Shabbat, since it is written in this verse va-yanhehu – “placed him” and in another verse “va-yanah – and He rested on the seventh day.³⁰¹Gen 2:15: va-yanhehu – literally, “caused him to rest;” Ex 20:11. In other words, the similar diction suggests, by midrashic logic, that Gen 2:15 is in fact an allusion to the rules for Shabbat in Ex 20:8-11 – part of the 10 Commandments. “To work it”³⁰²Gen 2:15. alludes to “six days shall you work”³⁰³Ex 20:9. and “to tend it” – li-shomrah – alludes to “Observe – shamor [the Sabbath day].”³⁰⁴Dt 5:12, i.e., Deuteronomy’s Shabbat commandment in its version of the 10 commandments. So ends the quotation from Genesis Rabba. And you will find in the chapter “Arvei Pesahim” of the Talmud³⁰⁵B. Pesahim 105b. that it said, “One can interrupt for Kiddush, but one does not interrupt for Havdalah. The explanation: If a person interrupts his meal on the eve of Shabbat and says birkat ha-mazon for a regular day, and afterwards says the Kiddush for Shabbat, this is “making an interruption.” But if he were eating on Shabbat and sundown came, he does not interrupt his meal, but rather, completes it. And even though he says birkat ha-mazon for Shabbat when it has become an ordinary day, it doesn’t matter, and then afterwards he makes Havdalah, which is what is meant by “one does not interrupt for Havdalah.” And the reason why is because it is proper for a person to interrupt his meal to honor the King when He enters in order to welcome Him, but on Shabbat one does not interrupt his meal for Havdalah, but rather keeps eating like a person who wants the King to stay and to delay Him from leaving his home. For were he to interrupt the meal, it would seem like he was trying to get rid of the King. And this is like what our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash in Mekhilta: “Remember and Keep!” “Remember” Shabbat at its entrance, so as to welcome it before sunset so that everything is prepared for it. “And Keep!” Keep it as it leaves, like a person watching over the king or his dear friend who is with him, and he doesn’t want him to go; he does what he can the whole time to delay him.³⁰⁶Mekhilta of R. Simon Bar Yohai, Yitro 20:8.

Also it says there:²⁹⁹In Genesis Rabbah 16:8. “And He placed him [Adam] in the Garden of Eden,”³⁰⁰Gen 2:15. the Holy One Blessed be He gave Adam the commandments of Shabbat, since it is written in this verse va-yanhehu – “placed him” and in another verse “va-yanah – and He rested on the seventh day.³⁰¹Gen 2:15: va-yanhehu – literally, “caused him to rest;” Ex 20:11. In other words, the similar diction suggests, by midrashic logic, that Gen 2:15 is in fact an allusion to the rules for Shabbat in Ex 20:8-11 – part of the 10 Commandments. “To work it”³⁰²Gen 2:15. alludes to “six days shall you work”³⁰³Ex 20:9. and “to tend it” – li-shomrah – alludes to “Observe – shamor [the Sabbath day].”³⁰⁴Dt 5:12, i.e., Deuteronomy’s Shabbat commandment in its version of the 10 commandments. So ends the quotation from Genesis Rabba. And you will find in the chapter “Arvei Pesahim” of the Talmud³⁰⁵B. Pesahim 105b. that it said, “One can interrupt for Kiddush, but one does not interrupt for Havdalah. The explanation: If a person interrupts his meal on the eve of Shabbat and says birkat ha-mazon for a regular day, and afterwards says the Kiddush for Shabbat, this is “making an interruption.” But if he were eating on Shabbat and sundown came, he does not interrupt his meal, but rather, completes it. And even though he says birkat ha-mazon for Shabbat when it has become an ordinary day, it doesn’t matter, and then afterwards he makes Havdalah, which is what is meant by “one does not interrupt for Havdalah.” And the reason why is because it is proper for a person to interrupt his meal to honor the King when He enters in order to welcome Him, but on Shabbat one does not interrupt his meal for Havdalah, but rather keeps eating like a person who wants the King to stay and to delay Him from leaving his home. For were he to interrupt the meal, it would seem like he was trying to get rid of the King. And this is like what our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash in Mekhilta: “Remember and Keep!” “Remember” Shabbat at its entrance, so as to welcome it before sunset so that everything is prepared for it. “And Keep!” Keep it as it leaves, like a person watching over the king or his dear friend who is with him, and he doesn’t want him to go; he does what he can the whole time to delay him.³⁰⁶Mekhilta of R. Simon Bar Yohai, Yitro 20:8.

Avid sports fans often ask their Rabbanim if it is permitted to program devices before Shabbat that will record sporting events that are played on Shabbat. Shemot 20:10 seems to imply that Hashem requires us to ensure that only our animals, not our utensils, refrain from melachah on Shabbat. Thus, it would appear that Halachah permits us to record sports events on Shabbat, since we do not perform any labor on Shabbat, as only our utensils work.

1. It is a positive commandment to believe that there is a God who exists. As it says (Exodus 20:2), "I am the Lord your God..." He - may He blessed and elevated - caused to exist everything that exists and all the worlds, from His power and His desire, may He be blessed, and he oversees everything. This is the foundation of the religion. One who does not believe that is a denier of that which is fundamental, and he has no portion or merit in Israel. We are obligated to stake our lives and our possessions on this belief. It is fundamental for a person to establish in his mind that this is the truth, and no alternative is possible. This [commandment] applies in all times and all places, to males and females.

"You shall not perform any labor" (Exodus 20:10): I [know] only that acts of labor and [their] derivatives are prohibited. Whence [do I know] to prohibit rabbinic forms of labor? The verse states "any labor." I would think that one is liable for a sin-offering for transgressing a rabbinic prohibition; [therefore] the verse states "labor"—there is liability [for a sin-offering] for designated labor but there is no liability [for transgression of] a rabbinic prohibition.

And there is no distinction in this between [reporting him to have transgressed] an absolute negative commandment or an absolute positive commandment of the Torah, which is well known to be forbidden, in which instance he will certainly be shamed before the hearer, but even if it is something which many Jews are not careful about, in which instance he will not be greatly demeaned, such as saying about one that he does not want to learn Torah or that something which he said is false and the like (unless there be some benefit in this, such as apprising his friend that something is false, intending only his benefit, as will be explained below in Principle 10) — even in such instances, it is forbidden. For in any event, according to his [the speaker's] words, he is a man that does not fulfill the Torah. And it is even forbidden to speak against him in the branches of the mitzvoth, such as that he is stingy and does not honor the Sabbath as he should (this [the honoring of the Sabbath] being included in the positive commandment of "Zachor" [i.e., "Remember [Zachor] the day of the Sabbath to sanctify it" (Shemoth 20:8)], as explained in Charedim].) Or even if he maligns him for violating a general edict of the Rabbis, as when they [the Rabbis] rule that ab initio this and this should not be done. And [it is forbidden] even if not spoken to his face, and even if it is true, he [the speaker himself] having seen him do this thing.

One revolution, which includes all the spheres, is from east to west. The twelve zodiacal constellations¹³ The order of the zodiacal constellations and zodiacal signs is: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. complete a revolution in twenty-four hours,¹⁴ This is known as a “sidereal day,” which is the interval between two successive passes of the vernal equinox point over the meridian. A sidereal day is slightly less (by about four minutes) than a “solar day,” the interval of time between two successive passes of the sun across the meridian. Apparently Ibn Ezra used sidereal time rather than solar time. and the seven planets¹⁵ The seven planets known at that time are: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. also finish their revolutions in approximately the same amount of time. The second revolution is from west to east. It also includes all of the spheres, for the poles of the spheres of the planets are similar to the poles of the zodiacal sphere.¹⁶ All of the lower eight spheres that contain the planets and the fixed stars rotate at various rates around the earth from west to east. Only the sun maintains the path of the ecliptic, not deviating south nor north. It traverses the complete zodiac in 365 days, five hours, and fractions of an hour. This is a solar year and the true year, for the days return a second time to what they were in the preceding year. For this reason a year is called “shana” (repetition).

You should know that that which they said (Makkot 23b), "613 commandments were stated to Moshe at Sinai," indicates that this is the number of the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. For commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations do not have a connection to Sinai - whether they were stated at Sinai or elsewhere. However their intention in saying, "at Sinai," was that the main giving of the Torah was at Sinai. And that was His, may He be elevated, saying, "Come up to Me on the mountain and be there, and I will give [it] to you" (Exodus 24:12). And in explanation, they said, "What is the verse [that alludes to this]? 'Moshe commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov' (Deuteronomy 33:4)" - meaning to say - "the numerical value of [the word,] Torah is 611. In addition, 'I am the Lord your God' and 'You shall have no other gods' (Exodus 20:2, 3), that we heard from the mouth of the Almighty." And with them, the total of the commandments is 613. They wanted to say with this indication that the thing that Moshe commanded us - and that we did not hear from anyone but him - was the number of 611 commandments. And he called it, "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov." And a commandment that is not practiced for [all] the generations is not an inheritance for us. For it is indeed only that which will be continuous for the generations - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 11:21), "like the days of the heavens upon the earth" - that will be called an inheritance for us. And likewise, their statement (Tanchuma, Ki Tetzeh), that it is as if each and every limb commands a person to do a commandment; and it is as if each and every day is warning a person from sin. This is a proof that the number will never be lacking. But if commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations were included in the count of the commandments, behold that the number would be lacking once the obligation of such a commandment ceased. And then this statement would only be correct for a limited time. However someone besides us already erred in this principle as well and counted - because he was forced by a need - "But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary" (Numbers 4:20); and "he shall serve no more" (Numbers 8:25), concerning the Levites. Yet these were also only practiced in the wilderness. And even though they said (Sanhedrin 81b:18), "From where is there a hint about one who steals a jar for the Temple service (that he is killed)? 'But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary'" - there is enough [clarification here] in their saying, "a hint." But the simple understanding of the verse is not like this; and it is not even included in those liable for the death penalty at the hands of the Heavens - as is explained in the Tosefta (Tosefta Keritot 1) and in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a). And I am wondering about this, why they mentioned these negative commandments. Why did they not [also] count about the manna, "Let no one leave any of it over until morning" (Exodus 16:19); or that which He, may He blessed said, "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war" (Deuteronomy 2:9), and likewise the prohibition that came about the the Children of Ammon, "do not harass them or start a fight with them" (Deuteronomy 2:19). And likewise should he count among the positive commandments, "Make a seraph figure and mount it on a standard" (Numbers 21:8); and its saying, "Take a jar and put one omer of manna in it" (Exodus 16:33) - like he counted the tithe of the [booty] (Numbers 31) and the dedication of the altar (Numbers 7). And he should have also counted, "Be ready for the third day" (Exodus 19:15); "neither shall the flocks and the herds graze" (Exodus 34:3); "they shall not destroy, to come up" (Exodus 19:24); and many like these. And no intelligent person will doubt that all of these commandments were given to Moshe at Sinai as commands and [prohibitions; however they were all temporary and not practiced for [all] generations. And therefore they were not counted. And because of this principle, it is inappropriate to count the blessings and the curses that they were commanded at Gerizim and Eval; nor to count the building of the altar that we were commanded to build when we entered the Land of Canaan - for all of these were temporary commandments. And likewise, not the command that we were commanded to sacrifice any animal, from which we want to eat, as peace-offerings - as this was only a temporary command. And that was its saying, "and you shall bring them to the Lord" (Leviticus 7:8)." And they said in Sifrei, Achrei Mot, "'And you shall bring them' is a positive commandment" - but it was only so in the wilderness. For the dispensation to eat meat for pleasure is explained in [Deuteronomy]; and that is its saying, "you may eat meat whenever you wish" (Deuteronomy 12:20). And had it been appropriate to count everything of this type - meaning all that Moshe was commanded from the day he was appointed to be a prophet until the day he died - there would be more than three hundred commandments, besides the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. This is when we count all the commands that came in Egypt, everything about the preparations [for the tabernacle service], and the other ones besides them - some are positive commandments and some are negative commandments, but they are all written in the Torah. And since he did not count all of them, he is perforce also obligated not to count any of them; and not like this other man, who took [only] some of these things to help him, when he toiled to find the [right] tally. And this is the critique we wanted to make about him regarding this principle.

The Mishnayot (Shabbat 1:5-6) record a debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai regarding the scope of the prohibition of melachah on Shabbat. The Torah (Shemot 20:10) commands that our children, our slaves, and even our animals must rest on Shabbat. Beit Shamai argue that this prohibition extends even to one’s utensils. Thus, according to Beit Shamai, one cannot, for example, set a trap before Shabbat in order that an animal be caught on Shabbat, as this constitutes his utensil performing melachah on Shabbat.

Diverse aspects of the Sabbath experience find expression in the various biblical texts which serve as the basis of this commandment. The Decalogue is recorded twice in the Torah. The first presentation of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 occurs in conjunction with the narrative concerning the receiving of the Torah at Mount Sinai; the second is contained in the valedictory of Moses and recorded in Deuteronomy 5. The two versions differ radically with regard to the formulation of the commandment concerning Sabbath observance. In Exodus 20:8 the Torah reports that the first tablet contained the exhortation: "Zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat le-kadesho—Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The underlying rationale of the commandment follows immediately: "Six days shall you labor and do all your work; but the seventh is a Sabbath unto the Lord your God…for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and He rested on the seventh day…." In this context Shabbat is firmly rooted in the creation of heaven and earth and it is the act of creation which we are bidden to remember through observance of the Sabbath. The word zakhor—remember—has a historical flavor, referring to events of the distant past; we are told to refer back to past history, to the six days in which God created heaven and earth. Thus the Sabbath stands as an eternal memorial to the very first Shabbat—Shabbat Bereshit—the Sabbath of creation.

Before reciting the psalm, there day is invoked according to the format: “Today is the first day from Shabbat,” in order to fulfill the mitzva of remembering Shabbat every day of the week (based on Ramban on Shemot 20:8; Arizal as cited in Kaf Ha-ḥayim 132:26).

And also of this type is His, may He be exalted, saying that a betrothed maiden that is promiscuous is [killed] by stoning; but [if she is] the daughter of a priest, by burning - which are the filling out of the details of the law of [adultery with] a married woman. And everyone, who I have heard of already, erred in this - counting a married woman as a commandment, a betrothed maiden as [another] commandment and the daughter of a priest as [yet another] commandment, when the matter is not like this. Rather it is as I shall explain. And that is that His, may He be exalted, saying, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13), is a commandment from the tally of the commandments - and the tradition came that this negative commandment is the prohibition of the married woman. Afterwards, Scripture explained that one who violates this negative commandment is killed; and that is its saying, "they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress" (Leviticus 20:10). Afterwards, Scripture filled in this detail and the conditions of this issue and judgement. So it stipulated conditions and said that that which is stated - "they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress" - has distinctions: If she was a married woman that was the daughter of a priest, she is burned; if she was a betrothed virgin maiden, she is stoned; and if she was married but was not the daughter of a priest, she is strangled. But it is not that the stipulations of the laws of [its] death penalty expand it into several commandments; for we have not exited the prohibition of the married woman in all of this. And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 51b:10), they said in explanation, "All were included in 'the adulterer and the adulteress': [Then] the verse singled out the daughter of an Israelite for stoning and the daughter of a priest for burning." With this, they meant that regarding the prohibition of a married woman, all are included in that which Scripture said about them, "they shall surely be killed, the adulterer and the adulteress" - however Scripture differentiated about this death, and had some people to be burned and some of them to be stoned. And were it appropriate to count the detail of a commandment when it is written in the Torah, we would have been required to not list one who kills a soul by mistake being exiled as a single commandment, since Scripture has already detailed this commandment (Numbers 35:16-28). So we would have also counted the statement of Scripture, "But if he strikes him with a metal instrument," as one commandment. And the second commandment would have been its saying, "And if he struck him with a stone tool." And the third commandment would have been, "Or struck him with a wooden instrument." And the fourth commandment would have been its saying, "The blood-avenger shall put the killer to death." And the fifth would have been its saying, "Or if he pushed him with hatred." And the sixth would have been its saying, "or hurled something at him on purpose." And the seventh would have been its saying, "Or if he struck him with his hand in enmity." And the eighth would have been its saying, "But if suddenly without enmity." And the ninth would have been its saying, "or hurled any object at him unintentionally." And the tenth would have been, "Or any deadly object of stone without seeing." The eleventh would have been, "and he dropped it upon him and he died, though he was not an enemy of his." The twelfth would have been, "And the congregation shall protect the killer." The thirteenth would have been, "and the congregation shall bring him back to his city of refuge." The fourteenth would have been, "and there he shall remain until the death of the high priest." The fifteenth would have been, "But if the killer surely goes outside." The sixteenth would have been, "and after the death of the high priest, the killer may return." And had we done this with each and every commandment, the number of commandments would have added up to more than two thousand. And the damage [of doing so] is clear, since they are all details of the topic. But the commandment that is counted is the law of one who kills a soul by mistake, and that is the law about which we have been instructed to evaluate the laws and details that are written about it. And likewise did God call them, regulations; and He did not call them, commandments - but said (Numbers 35:24), "And the congregation shall judge between the killer and the blood-avenger according to these regulations."

Here are honest witnesses that the day begins with dusk. Similarly for all the holidays and the Sabbath, for all are “appointed seasons of God, holy gatherings” (ibid. 23:4). Only the Sabbath is called “a Sabbath for God” (Exodus 20:10, Deuteronomy 5:14), for God rested during Creation. Since both the year and the day are dependent on the sun, for both motions are similar one to another, therefore the seventh year is comparable to the Sabbath day. Hence it is also written with regard to the seventh year “a Sabbath for God” (Leviticus 25:2). Therefore, just as the Sabbatical year begins with the autumn season, so the beginning of the Sabbath day is in that period of the day corresponding to autumn, which begins with dusk.

Rav Dov Brisman (a prominent Rav and Dayan in Philadelphia) presents quite a compelling defense of this practice in Teshuvot Shalmei Chovah (Y.D. 63). Rav Brisman notes other areas in which we seem not to treat pesukim as Chazal would prefer. The issue he focuses on is the common practice to recite fragments of pesukim, such as “Vayehi erev vayehi voker yom hashishi” (Bereishit 1:31) at the start of Friday night kiddush and “Al kein beirach Hashem et yom hashabbat vayekashsheihu” (Shemot 20:10) at the start of Shabbat morning kiddush, despite the Gemara's apparent injunction against splitting a pasuk which Moshe Rabbeinu did not split in the Torah (Taanit 27b). While many, such as Mishnah Berurah (289:2) and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Nefesh HaRav p.159), adopt a strict practice not to recite fragments of pesukim, common practice is to be lenient, as noted by the Mishnah Berurah.

(10) And if he [the one spoken against] were his older brother, or his mother's husband or his father's wife, he also transgresses the positive commandment of "honoring," their having been included [in this mitzvah by the addition of "ve'eth", [(Shemoth 20:12): "Honor your father and [ve'eth] your mother," as explained in Kethuvoth 103a)]. How much more so — if, G–d forbid, [he speaks lashon hara] against his father or mother themselves, where he certainly transgresses the positive commandment of honoring father and mother — [is such lashon hara especially egregious]! Aside from all this, he also transgresses (Devarim 27:16): "Cursed is he who demeans his father and his mother" — may Heaven protect us!

And I am surprised at a man who counted all of those that are liable for the death penalties of the court - every single one, those liable for excision and those liable for death - among the negative commandments, when he also counted among the the negative commandments, the things from which they were prohibited for which one is liable for death. As the author of the Halakhot Gedolot (Behag) counted one who desecrates the Shabbat among those that are liable for stoning, and then [also] counted, "you shall not do any work" (Exodus 20:10). There is no other option but that they without a doubt first thought that the punishments were [individual] negative commandments. But how could one count both the punishment and the matter about which one is liable for that punishment among them? And more difficult than this is that he counted those that are liable for excision and death at the hands of the Heavens as negative commandments; and that they thought that the liability for excision is the counted commandment. So much so that the author of the Sefer HaMitzvot (of Rav Chafetz Gaon) revealed his opinion about this and said this thing in the first chapter - while explaining what is included in that chapter. These are his words: "And among them are thirty-two matters that He told us that He, may He be blessed, is designated for its doing and not us; and all of them are guaranteed." Indeed, by saying, "among them," he is saying that they are from the things he is including in that chapter. And the content of the thirty-two are the twenty-three sins for which one is liable for excision and the nine for which one is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens, as he counted. And the content of his saying, "guaranteed," is that He, may He be blessed, guarantees that he will excise or kill him. If so, there is no doubt that he did not retain with him that he is to believe that all of the 613 commandments are obligations upon us; but rather [thought] that there are are some of them that we are obligated, and some of them that He, may He be blessed, is obligated - as I will explain. And he said that He is designated for their doing, not us! Upon my life, this is a great confusion to me! It is inappropriate to [even] speak about this in any way, as they are clearly empty words. However they all made this mistake by counting the punishments as commandments and became confused by them. Sometimes they would count them by themselves and sometimes they would count [both] the punishments and the thing for which one is punished, and they made them all negative commandments - without reflection. But the true way of counting is that which I have mentioned - that each type of punishment be a positive commandment, such that the law of the payment of a thief be a positive commandment; for we were commanded to punish him with his money according to this measure. And likewise is the addition of a fifth a positive commandment; and the law of the obligation of a fixed sin-offering is a commandment; and the law of the obligation of a definite guilt-offering is a commandment; and the law of an uncertain guilt-offering is a commandment; and the variable sacrifice is a commandment. And each one of these punishments - burning, stoning, killing, strangling and hanging - is its own positive commandment. This is regardless of the [class] of people that are liable for it; just as lashes are one commandment regardless of who is liable. And this is what we wanted to preface about this principle. And with it are all the principles completed, the prefacing of which will assist you in that which we are involved.

It is also appropriate for us to attach this preface: And that is that anything for which one is liable a death penalty of the court or excision is perforce a negative commandment - except for the Passover (sacrifice) and circumcision. For they involve excision, even though they are positive commandments - as they said at the beginning of Tractate Keritot (Keritot 2a). But besides them, there are absolutely no positive commandments for which one who transgresses them would be liable for excision; all the more so a death penalty of the court. And anything about which it appears in the Torah, that if one does a certain action, he is to be killed or become liable for excision - it is certainly known that this act is prohibited and that it is a negative commandment. But behold sometimes Scripture explains the punishment alongside the prohibition, such that it explains the punishment and the prohibition. For example, the desecration of Shabbat and idolatry - about which it states, "you shall not do any work" (Exodus 20:10), and "you shall not worship them" (Exodus 20:5); and afterwards renders the one who does work [on Shabbat] or who worships idolatry liable for stoning. And sometimes the prohibition is not made clear as a definite negative commandment in Scripture; but He rather mentions the punishment and omits the prohibition. But the principle amongst us is that Scripture does not punish [for something] unless it prohibited [it], and that it is impossible not to have a prohibition for anyone who is liable a punishment. And hence, it is said in every place, "We have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, such and such." And when the prohibition is not in Scripture, it is learned out by one of the Talmudic methods - like that which they mentioned about the prohibition of cursing one's father and mother and of striking one's father and mother, which is not explicit in Scripture at all. As it did not say, "You shall not strike your father." Yet it made one who strikes or curses liable for a death penalty. Hence we know that they are negative commandments; and we derived the prohibition for them - and those like them - from other places, by way of analogy. And this does not contradict their saying, "We do not derive a prohibition from an inference," nor their always saying, "And can we derive a prohibition from a derivation?" For we only say, "We do not derive a prohibition from an inference," regarding the derivation from an analogy of a prohibition that is not understood at all. However when we find the punishment for one who does this action explicit in the Torah, we perforce know that it is a forbidden action from which we are prohibited. Yet we regardless derive it from an analogy, so that the principle of their saying, "Scripture did not punish [for something] unless it prohibited [it]," be reinforced. But once the prohibition has come to us - not to do that thing - the one who transgressed and did [it] will become liable for excision or death. And know this principle and guard it together with the previous ones, to remember it in all that is coming up.

It is also appropriate for us to attach this preface: And that is that anything for which one is liable a death penalty of the court or excision is perforce a negative commandment - except for the Passover (sacrifice) and circumcision. For they involve excision, even though they are positive commandments - as they said at the beginning of Tractate Keritot (Keritot 2a). But besides them, there are absolutely no positive commandments for which one who transgresses them would be liable for excision; all the more so a death penalty of the court. And anything about which it appears in the Torah, that if one does a certain action, he is to be killed or become liable for excision - it is certainly known that this act is prohibited and that it is a negative commandment. But behold sometimes Scripture explains the punishment alongside the prohibition, such that it explains the punishment and the prohibition. For example, the desecration of Shabbat and idolatry - about which it states, "you shall not do any work" (Exodus 20:10), and "you shall not worship them" (Exodus 20:5); and afterwards renders the one who does work [on Shabbat] or who worships idolatry liable for stoning. And sometimes the prohibition is not made clear as a definite negative commandment in Scripture; but He rather mentions the punishment and omits the prohibition. But the principle amongst us is that Scripture does not punish [for something] unless it prohibited [it], and that it is impossible not to have a prohibition for anyone who is liable a punishment. And hence, it is said in every place, "We have heard the punishment; from where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, such and such." And when the prohibition is not in Scripture, it is learned out by one of the Talmudic methods - like that which they mentioned about the prohibition of cursing one's father and mother and of striking one's father and mother, which is not explicit in Scripture at all. As it did not say, "You shall not strike your father." Yet it made one who strikes or curses liable for a death penalty. Hence we know that they are negative commandments; and we derived the prohibition for them - and those like them - from other places, by way of analogy. And this does not contradict their saying, "We do not derive a prohibition from an inference," nor their always saying, "And can we derive a prohibition from a derivation?" For we only say, "We do not derive a prohibition from an inference," regarding the derivation from an analogy of a prohibition that is not understood at all. However when we find the punishment for one who does this action explicit in the Torah, we perforce know that it is a forbidden action from which we are prohibited. Yet we regardless derive it from an analogy, so that the principle of their saying, "Scripture did not punish [for something] unless it prohibited [it]," be reinforced. But once the prohibition has come to us - not to do that thing - the one who transgressed and did [it] will become liable for excision or death. And know this principle and guard it together with the previous ones, to remember it in all that is coming up.

The Mishnah (Eiduyot 8:6) records Rabbi Yehoshua’s testimony that we may offer korbanot even in the absence of a Beit Hamikdash, and the Rambam (Hilchot Beit Habechirah 6:15) codifies his opinion.¹⁵See, however, Teshuvot Binyan Tzion (1:1), who raises the possibility that Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion applies only to times when the process of rebuilding the Beit Hamikdash has begun based on divine command, whereas one may not offer korbanot when no divinely sanctioned plans exist to rebuild it. However, although we may bring korbanot without the Beit Hamikdash, we still need a mizbei’ach (altar).¹⁶Constructing the mizbei’ach is also complicated, because its stones may not be cut with metal (see Shemot 20:22). See Tosafot (Sukkah 49a s.v. shekol) regarding the possibility of cutting the stones with metal before they have been sanctified for the mizbei’ach. The Rambam (Hilchot Beit Habechirah 2:1) writes that the mizbei’ach must be built in an extremely precise location on the Temple Mount. Due to the difficulty in properly identifying the mizbei’ach’s place, the people consulted prophets when they constructed it shortly before building the Second Temple (Zevachim 62a and Rambam, Hilchot Beit Habechirah 2:4). Accordingly, the Binyan Tzion (1:1) asserts that we need a prophet to pinpoint the location for the mizbei’ach. Nevertheless, Rav Kalischer (Ma’amar Kadishin, “Comments to the Av Beit Din of Griditz” 4) argues that we may simply follow the measurements found in Masechet Midot to position the mizbei’ach. He explains that a prophet was required during the building of the Second Temple only because they lacked a written record of the mizbei’ach’s precise location. On the other hand, the Mishnah in Middot stipulates exactly how far the mizbeiach should be from each wall. Similarly, Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook (in the sources cited in Techumin 11:532-545) does not believe that a prophet is indispensable for renewing the korbanot. Nonetheless, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Moadim Uzmanim 5:351) comments that we cannot easily implement Rav Kalischer’s suggestion, because great uncertainty surrounds the size of an amah (cubit), the unit of measurement used by the Mishnah (see Encyclopedia Talmudit 2:29).

The Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 6:8), Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 240:19), Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 240:42), and Teshuvot Seridei Eish (3:95) urge the parents of grown children to refrain from imposing unnecessary and burdensome demands on their children. Parents should help their children by not making it excessively difficult for them to fulfill the mitzvot of kibbud and mora av va’eim.⁹For examples of when a child is permitted to disregard a parent’s order, see Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 240:25) and Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 240:36 and 45). On the other hand, children must do their utmost to properly fulfill these mitzvot, which the Rambam (ad. loc. 6:1) greatly extols and the Gemara (Kiddushin 30b) compares to honoring and revering Hashem. Given that the Torah, in a rare occurrence, states the reward for this mitzvah of honoring parents (Shemot 20:12), it is very advisable to consider what is at stake when dealing with these matters.

That is that we were commanded to build a choice house for Divine service, in which there will be sacrifices and an eternal burning of fire; and to which there will be journeying and pilgrimage on the festivals, and gatherings every year. And that is His saying, "And let them make Me a sanctuary" (Exodus 25:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 67:1) is, "Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over themselves; to build themselves a choice house; and to cut off the seed of Amalek." Behold it has been made clear to you that the building of the choice house is a separate commandment. And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 12) that this aggregate includes many parts, such as the menorah, the table, the altar and the rest of them - all of them are parts of the Temple. And all of it is called, Temple, even as each and every part has an individual command. However, His saying about the altar, "Make for Me an altar of earth" (Exodus 20:21), could have been thought of as a separate commandment, besides the commandment of the Temple. And the content of this is as I will tell you: True, the simple understanding of the verse is indeed clearly speaking about the time of the permissibility of altars - as at that time, it was permitted for us to build an earthen altar and sacrifice upon it. But [the Sages] have already said that the [actual] content in this is that He commanded us to to build an altar that is connected to the ground, and that it not be detached and moved, as it was in the desert [journey from Egypt]. And that is their saying in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 20:21) in explanation of this verse, "When you come to the land, make Me an altar that is attached to the ground." And since the matter is so, behold that this command is practiced for [all] generations; and it would be one of the parts of the Temple - meaning that specifically an altar of stones be built. And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) in explanation of, "And if an altar of stones you make for Me" (Exodus 20:22), "Rabbi Yishmael says, 'Each and every, if, in the Torah [connotes] optionality, except for three.'" And one of the them is, "And if an altar of stones." They said, "'And if an altar of stones you make for Me.' This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Of whole stones shall you build [the altar of the Lord]' (Devarim 27:6)." And the regulations of this commandment as a whole - meaning to say, the building of the Temple and its description and the building of the altar - have been explained in the tractate associated with it, and that is Tractate Middot. And likewise is the form of the menorah, the table and the golden altar; and the location of their placement in the chamber explained in the Gemara, Menachot and Yoma. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)

That is that we were commanded to build a choice house for Divine service, in which there will be sacrifices and an eternal burning of fire; and to which there will be journeying and pilgrimage on the festivals, and gatherings every year. And that is His saying, "And let them make Me a sanctuary" (Exodus 25:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 67:1) is, "Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over themselves; to build themselves a choice house; and to cut off the seed of Amalek." Behold it has been made clear to you that the building of the choice house is a separate commandment. And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 12) that this aggregate includes many parts, such as the menorah, the table, the altar and the rest of them - all of them are parts of the Temple. And all of it is called, Temple, even as each and every part has an individual command. However, His saying about the altar, "Make for Me an altar of earth" (Exodus 20:21), could have been thought of as a separate commandment, besides the commandment of the Temple. And the content of this is as I will tell you: True, the simple understanding of the verse is indeed clearly speaking about the time of the permissibility of altars - as at that time, it was permitted for us to build an earthen altar and sacrifice upon it. But [the Sages] have already said that the [actual] content in this is that He commanded us to to build an altar that is connected to the ground, and that it not be detached and moved, as it was in the desert [journey from Egypt]. And that is their saying in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 20:21) in explanation of this verse, "When you come to the land, make Me an altar that is attached to the ground." And since the matter is so, behold that this command is practiced for [all] generations; and it would be one of the parts of the Temple - meaning that specifically an altar of stones be built. And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) in explanation of, "And if an altar of stones you make for Me" (Exodus 20:22), "Rabbi Yishmael says, 'Each and every, if, in the Torah [connotes] optionality, except for three.'" And one of the them is, "And if an altar of stones." They said, "'And if an altar of stones you make for Me.' This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Of whole stones shall you build [the altar of the Lord]' (Devarim 27:6)." And the regulations of this commandment as a whole - meaning to say, the building of the Temple and its description and the building of the altar - have been explained in the tractate associated with it, and that is Tractate Middot. And likewise is the form of the menorah, the table and the golden altar; and the location of their placement in the chamber explained in the Gemara, Menachot and Yoma. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)

Helkat Ya'akov further asserts that such matters constitute prohibited "weekday activities." Helkat Ya'akov also contends that, in the eyes of the untutored, use of such devices also appears to involve activities prohibited on Shabbat. Moreover, Helkat Ya'akov regards such matters as a violation of the commandment to "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8) that mandates that "your actions on Shabbat shall not be as [your actions] on a weekday."⁷Cf., Shabbat 113a and 113b. The Gemara cites the verse “and you shall honor it, not doing your wonted ways, nor pursuing your business, nor speaking thereof” (Isaiah 58:13) rather than Exodus 20:8 and proceeds to interpret the verse as follows: “ ‘And you shall honor if’—that your Sabbath clothing should not be as your weekday clothing; ‘nor doing your wonted ways’—your Sabbath gait should not be as your weekday gait; ‘nor pursuing your business’—your business is prohibited [but] the business of Heaven is permitted; ‘nor speaking thereof’—your Sabbath conversation should not be as your weekday conversation.” Those comments are cited with apparent approbation by Minḥat Yizḥak.⁸See also Minḥat Yiẓḥak, I, no. 107 and III, no. 38. Shevet ha-Levi, on the other hand, dismisses the notion that the use of an answering machine on Shabbat might constitute a prohibited form of commercial activity with a reductio ad absurdum: Were use of answering machines forbidden, making a mailbox available for delivery of mail on Shabbat should also be forbidden for the identical reason.

From the roots of this commandment are that we should remember and know that the world is created and not primordial, as it is written explicitly about the commandment of Shabbat (Exodus 20:11), "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day." Hence to remember this thing, it is fitting that we rest in one place; meaning to say that we not go to a faraway place, but rather only stroll and have delight [from our walks]. And the walking of [up to] twelve mil (the limit of what is allowed by the Torah) does not have much strain to it.

The commandment of belief in God: To believe that the world has one God that caused all that exists, and that all that is, and was, and will be forever and ever, is from His power and His will; and that He took us out out of Egypt and gave us the Torah - as it is stated (Exodus 20:2), "I am the Lord, your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt, etc." And its understanding is as if it said, "Know and believe that there is one God" - since the word, "I," indicates existence. And that which it stated, "who took you out, etc.," is to say that your hearts not seduce you to take the matter of your leaving the slavery of Egypt and the plagues of Egypt as the way of happenstance; but rather you should know that I am the One who took you out with will and providence - as He promised our forefathers, Avraham, Yitschak and Yaakov.

That we not believe in a god besides God alone: That we not believe in a god besides God, may He be blessed, alone, as it is stated (Exodus 20:3), "You shall have no other gods in front of Me." And its understanding is [that] you not believe in another god, except Me. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed wrote (Ramban on Exodus 20:3) [that] you will only find that Scripture states, "other gods," about belief of the heart. But concerning their making, it will never state, "do not make other gods," since the expression, "making," does not sit with others (since they cannot be made). And he, may his memory be blessed, was nicely precise [in this] - 'the words of the wise are grace!' And this commandment is the great fundamental principle of the Torah, as everything is dependent upon it - as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifrei Bamidbar 111:1), "Anyone who concedes to idolatry is as if he denied the whole entire Torah." And it is the same whether he accepts anything as a god besides only God, or whether he worships it according to its worship - meaning to say, in the way that those that believe in it worship it - or even not according to its worship, if he worships it according to the four well-known [forms of] worship, and they are sacrificing, bringing incense, pouring and bowing; he has transgressed upon "you shall have no." And pouring and sprinkling are one thing, and those that sprinkle are liable, [just] like those that pour.

As it is required for the house of Israel to read from the scrolls, and to teach in the Torah, and to conclude with the prophets, on each day according to its subject matter — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot, as it is written "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44), and it is commanded to read every matter at its time and extrapolate on the subject of the day, as taught, "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:¹In our manuscripts, it says "The Rabbis taught" here. Moses ordained for Israel that they would investigate and extrapolate on the matter of the day — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot" (Megillah 32a:17). On Ḥanukkah we read the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim we read "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). "And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for the new moon, and one from Ki Tissa. And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for Rosh Ḥodesh, and one for Ḥanukkah" (Megillah 29b:22). On Ḥanukkah and on Purim three people read, on Rosh Ḥodesh and on Ḥol ha-Moed four people read — since there is Musaf, we add [mosifin] a person. When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). When it falls on another day of the week, we advance the reading of the portion of the sheqalim, and interrupt the special readings. On the second² Shabbat of the month we read 'Remember' (Deuteronomy 25:17—17). On the third, the red heifer (Numbers 19:1—22). On the fourth, 'This month' (Exodus 12:1—20). If it falls on the sixth, then 'This month' is on the fifth. After that they return to the regular order. And everyone interrupts the order for Rosh Hodesh, Ḥanukah, Purim, fast days, festival days, and Yom Kippur (Mishnah Megillah 3:5). On Pesaḥ they read the portion of the festivals. And a mnemonic is: "during the bull, sanctify with money, cut in the desert, send the firstborn." On Shavuot, "On the third day" (Exodus 19:1–20:23), and on the second day, "Every firstborn" (Deuteronomy 15:19—16:37). On Rosh Hashanah, "And haShem remembered Sarah" (Genesis 21:1–34) and on the second day, "And God tested Abraham" (Genesis 22:1—24). On Yom Kippur, "after the death" (Leviticus 16:1—34). On Sukkot, the offerings for Sukkot (Numbers 29:12—34). On Ḥanukkah, the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim, "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). On Rosh Hodesh, "And on your new months" (Numbers 28:1–15). On the watches, the matter of creation (Genesis 1:1—2:3). On fast days, "And Moses petitioned" (Exodus 32:11—14, Exodus 34:1–10). On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat in the afternoon they read according to the order, but they are not counted in the order. As it is said, "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44) — it's commanded that they read each and every one at its time.

Even though the saying of kaddish and prayers are helpful to [the souls of] the parents, yet they are not the main thing. The most important thing is that the children walk in the path of righteousness, because with that they gain Heavenly favor for their parents. Thus it is written in the holy Zohar: (at the end of the portion Bechukosai) "A son honors his father."¹³Malachi 1:6. This statement is similar to the Divine command "Honor your father and your mother,"¹⁴Exodus 20:12. which teaches [that a son must provide his parents] with food and drink. All this he must do while they are alive. but after their death you might think he is exempt, this is not so. Even after their death it is his duty to honor them even more, for it is written, "Honor your father;" and if the son walks in the path of evil, he surely shows contempt for his father, and disgraces him. But if the son walks in the path of righteousness and acts properly, he certainly honors his father thereby; he honors him in this world in the [eyes] of men, and confers glory on him in the other world in the presence of the Holy One, blessed is He. And the Holy One, blessed is He, has mercy on him and seats him on His Throne of Honor … (end of Zohar text). A person should, therefore, instruct his children to observe one certain mitzvah [with particular care]. If they fulfill [this mitzvah] it counts for more than saying the kaddish. This is also a good course [to follow] for a person who has no sons, only daughters.

To not make a statue: To not make statues that will be worshiped; even if the one that makes them does not worship them, the making is itself forbidden, [so as] to push off the stumbling block. And there is no difference between his making it with his hand or commanding someone else to make it, as it is stated (Exodus 20:4), "You shall not make for yourself a statue or any depiction." And the one who commands to make it is the one who causes its making - that is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 4). And the opinion of Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (on that entry in Sefer HaMitzvot) it that there is no prohibition here except for not making idols with the intention of worshiping them. He also wrote that this negative commandment should not be counted from this scripture, as this verse only warns about the prohibition of idolatry which comes with the death penalty; but with the making of idols, the whole time that he does not worship them, the only thing he is liable for is lashes. And he, may his memory be blessed, wrote that this whole verse of "You shall have no," is considered one negative commandment [that] warns not to concede the divinity of anything besides Him; whether he accepts it as a god - meaning to say that he says to it, "You are my god" - or bows down to it, or worships it in one the four forbidden worships or worships it with the worship that is particular to it. Rather, he wrote that the [prohibition] of making idols and their preservation is extrapolated from the verse (Leviticus 19:4) of "Do not turn to idols or make molten gods for yourselves." And I wonder about that which Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote that there is no difference if he made it with his hand or if he commanded to make it - as behold, the one who commands is a dispatcher, and it is an established [principle] for us that a dispatcher is exempt.

To not bow down to idolatry: To not bow down to idolatry - and idolatry is anything that is worshiped besides God, blessed be He - as it is stated (Exodus 20:5), "You shall not bow down to them or serve them." And the explanation of the verse is not "do not bow down to them with the intention of worship," [so] that we would learn that bowing down, by itself - without the intention of worship - would not be forbidden. As behold, in another place, it is stated in the Torah (Exodus 34:14), "For you must not bow down to another god," which forbade bowing down by itself, from any angle. Rather, [the reason] it made "or serve them" adjacent, [is] to say that bowing down is one of the ways of worship. And we learn from here, with the assistance of other verses, that there are four worships about which the Torah is insistent with any idolatry in the world - and even if it is not the way of its worship, we are liable for it. And one of [these four] is bowing down.

To not worship idolatry in that which is its way to be worshiped: That we not worship any idolatry in the world with the things that are the way of those that believe in it to worship it. And even though its worship is not with one of the four worships that we said above, since he worshiped it with that which is its way to be worshiped, he is liable. And even [if] its worship is in a way of disgrace - for example, one who defecates to Peor, or one who throws stones at Markulis or one who passes his seed to Kamosh - as it is stated (Exodus 20:5), "or worship them," meaning to say with what is their way to be worshiped, whatever worship it may be.

Although the prohibition against erasure is not applicable, proper respect must nevertheless be paid to the name of God even when it occurs in languages other than Hebrew. Nedarim 7b states: "Every place where the unnecessary mention of the Divine Name is found, there poverty is to be found." This is deduced from the biblical verse "… in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee" (Exod. 20:21), indicating that the pronunciation of the Divine Name in a sacred manner is rewarded with blessing and prosperity. From this the converse is also deduced, viz., that the pronunciation of the Divine Name in vain leads to poverty.

To not swear in vain: That we not swear pointlessly, as it is stated (Exodus 20:7), "You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain." And the notion of pointlessness has four angles: [The first is,] for example (Shevuot 29a), that he swears about something known [to be true] that it is not so, like swearing about a pillar of marble that it is a pillar of gold. And so [too], anything like this. The second angle is, for example [Talmud Yerushalmi Shevuot 3:8], that he swears about what is known to be so, like about a stone that it is a stone and about a tree that it is a tree, and all that is like this. The third angle is that he swears to negate this commandment or the commandments that God, blessed be He, commanded us; as this is also completely pointless, since it is not in his hand to swear [to negate] that which God has already obligated him - and it is like the one who swears about something known that it is not so. The fourth angle is that he swears to do something that he does not have the power to do; for example (Shevuot 25a) that he will not sleep for three consecutive days, or that he will not eat for seven consecutive days. And so [too], anything like this.

The commandment of the sanctification of Shabbat with words: To speak words on the Shabbat upon its entry and also its departure - that there be in them cognizance of the greatness of the day and its stature and its positive distinction from the other days before it and after it; as it is stated (Exodus 20:8), "Remember the Shabbat day, to sanctify it," meaning to say, remember it with a memory of [its] holiness and greatness. And in explanation, our Sages told us (Pesachim 110a) that we are commanded to say these things upon wine - as so does the explanation come: remember it over wine. And the content is that we place into a cup a reviit or more of pure or mixed wine - but not less than this (Pesachim 108b). And it is known that the [proportions of the] mixture is one part pure good wine to three parts water. And we recite the blessing of the Kiddush (sanctification) of Shabbat upon it, according to the wording that is known among the Jews. And so [too], at the departure of Shabbat, we recite the blessing over the wine in honor of the day - and that blessing of the conclusion of Shabbat is called Havdalah (Berakhot 52a).

It is from the roots of this commandment [that it is] in order that we be aroused through this act to remember the greatness of the day and that we fix upon our hearts faith in the creation of the world, "that in six days the Lord made, etc." (Exodus 20:11). And therefore, we are obligated to do an act with wine - since the nature of man is to be greatly aroused by it (Berakhot 35b), as it satiates and causes joy. And I have already said to you that according to the arousal of a man and his acts will he always be acted upon towards things. And from this root did they, may their memory be blessed, say in the Gemara (Pesachim 106b), that if bread is more beloved to a person, he should sanctify [the day] over bread - since then his nature will be more aroused by that which he craves. And even though in the departure of the day, they did not say this, but rather obligated him to recite Havdalah with wine nonetheless, they were correct with this as well; since they, may their memory be blessed, as well as the perfect Torah, will always choose to go according to the majority. And in truth, the majority of the world will desire drinking over eating at the conclusion of Shabbat; since they have already [eaten] a large meal during the day in honor of the Shabbat. And there is no need to give a reason for their obligating us that there be a reviit of wine in the cup; since less than this amount is not fitting and will not arouse the heart of a man upon it. And that which they obligated us in rinsing the cup (Berakhot 51a), and not to drink anything until he recites the Kiddush (Pesachim 105a) and that he recites the Kiddush at the location of his meal - all of [these] are branches of the root of arousal that I [discussed].

(Yod) “The fear of the Lord was its storage chest” (Isaiah 33:6). And [this] means like that which [Rabbi Bachya] said in the Duties of the Heart, “And be careful that that your enterprise in your acts for God not be like the enterprise of the bird about which the verse says that it lays its egg and warms it on top of the ground and so fails to safeguard it, to the point that other animals destroy it and it does not become a fledgling.” [This is] like the verse states (Job 39:13-14), “The wing of the ostrich spreads […]. She leaves her eggs on the ground, etc.” And even one who is occupied with Torah, the commandments and acts of lovingkindness require safeguarding. And that is fear [of God] – like the kav of ḥomton (a substance that keeps pests away from grain), as is elucidated in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a-31b).⁸⁷See the next paragraph. And it is written,⁸⁸The first and last part of the quote is from Exod. 20:16-17, but the middle is from Deut. 5:22. “You speak to us […] and we will hear, lest the great fire consume us. And [Moshe] said […], ‘Be not afraid; for God has come only in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may be upon your faces.’” And at first glance, this is not understood – first he says, “Be not afraid”; and at the end he says, “in order that the fear of Him may be upon your faces.” And it appears to me [that it can be explained] according to that which is said about one of those who had fear [of God]: That they found him sleeping in one of the wildernesses and said to him, “Are you not afraid of lions; that you are sleeping in this place?” He said [back] to them, “I am ashamed in front of God to have any fear besides my fear of Him.” [This is] brought in the Duties of the Heart (in the Section on Love, Chapter 6).⁸⁹10:6. See there. And this is the intention of the statement of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, “‘That fear of Him may be upon your faces’ – this is [referring to] shame” (Nedarim 20a). The explanation is that they be embarrassed to fear anything else behind Him, may He be blessed. And this is what Moshe told them, “Be not afraid,” meaning that they not be afraid from the voices and the fire – like they said, “Lest it consume us.” But only “the fear of Him should be upon your faces” – and that is the shame. And anyone who is on this level will have all of his actions dedicated to His name, may He be blessed. And with this, there will be a safeguarding of his Torah and his good deeds. And so did Kohelet say (Ecclesiastes 12:13), “Fear God and guard His commandments” – and its explanation is that only through fear of Him will his commandments be guarded, just like the wheat with the kav of ḥomton. And without the safeguarding, the Torah [that one studies] and the commandments [he performs] are not lasting. And in the Zohar, fear [of God] is given the name daughter; and Torah, the name son. And it is possible that they were hinting to this in the Talmud (Bava Batra 141a), “A daughter first is a good sign for sons. […] because she raises [the sons].” [This is] according to that which is written in Avot 3:9, “Anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, etc. And anyone whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, etc.” And this is [the meaning of “A daughter first,” meaning fear, “is a good sign for sons,” meaning Torah – “because she raises [the sons].” As through it, the Torah [study becomes] lasting. And through this, the explanation of the song of Haazinu becomes elucidated – “The Lord saw and was vexed, and spurned His sons and His daughters” (Deut. 32:19): [This] means that they had the son come before the daughter – the explanation of which is that Torah [preceded] fear. “And He said, ‘I will see how they fare in the end, for they are a generation of reverses’” (Deut. 32:20), as they reverse the order; and as a result of this, they are “children with no faith in them,” – the explanation of which is that also the Torah [study] that they have with them will not grow and be lasting with them.

Another practice questioned by Dr. Rabinowitz is constraint in pronouncing the terms Shaddai and Ẓeva'ot. The prohibition against vocalizing the name of God other than in the reading of Scripture, prayer, or recitation of blessings is derived from the positive commandment "The Lord your God shall you fear" (Deut. 6:13). Restraint in not mentioning the name of God in vain is a manifestation of fear and awe. Rav Aḥai Ga'on, She'iltot, Yitro, She'ilta 53, deems this to be a transgression of the negative prohibition "Thou shalt not take the name the Lord your God in vain" (Exod. 20:7). According to numerous authorities, e.g., Rambam Hilkhot Shevu'ot 12:11 (see Teshuvot R. Akiva Eger, no. 25), this prohibition embraces all of the seven names of God. Since both Shaddai and Ẓeva'ot are enumerated among the seven names of the Deity common practice is to use the assonant forms Shakai and Ẓevakot respectively as substitutes for these names. Dr. Rabinowitz' incredulity at this "strange mispronunciation of Hebrew" is misplaced.

To not do work on Shabbat: To not do work on the day of Shabbat ourselves; and not allow our children, slaves and animals to do so, as it is stated (Exodus 20:10), "you shall not do work, etc." There is no doubt that even though the verse issues a [single blanket] prohibition on us, our children, servants, and animals, they are not all equal; as we see that one who volitionaly does work with his own body will be liable for the death penalty in a court. But with the work of others - even though he is warned about them with a negative commandment - he is not liable for them; [not] even with lashes, as lashes are never for the act of others. And from the language of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbath 20:1) it is implied that he holds that this prohibition of " you shall not do work, you [...] and your animal," comes upon letting an animal work (mechamer) while being behind it - for example, that he is using it to plow. As, according to his opinion, letting an animal work by itself is only a prohibition [embedded] in a positive commandment. And hence, according to his opinion, they said in the Gemara (Shabbat 154a) that this negative commandment of letting your animals do work is a negative commandment that is given over to the warning of a death penalty from the court - meaning to say, that a man is killed for it, and [so] there are no lashes for it. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (on Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Shorashim 14) wrangles with him greatly on this explanation, and says that this negative commandment of letting your animals do work is only about walking behind his animal laden with his load, while the man does not do any act with his hands. And therefore neither lashes nor the death penalty would ever come to him; and it is as that which has been established for us, we do not administer lashes for any negative commandment that does not have an act. [And it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Shabbat 154b), "'You [...] and your animal' - let it write, you shall not do work and your animal'; why do I need 'you?' [To tell you] that when he does work, he is liable; but for the work of his animal he is not lia work ble." Rather, he is [just] warned about it with a negative commandment, like with the work of his young child and his Canaanite slave. But for his own actual work - for that there was no reason to say that he is liable, as behold, his punishment is explicit (Exodus 34:2), "any one who does work on it shall die." And according to the opinion of Ramban, may his memory be blessed, the explanation of that which they said in the Gemara about the negative commandment of letting your animal do work, that it is a negative commandment that is given over to the warning of a death penalty from the court, is that since it also includes the other [types of] work which [come] with a warning of a death penalty from the court - even though with letting your animal work there is certainly only a negative commandment, as there is also not [even] lashes with it - nonetheless, this negative commandment is [called] a negative commandment that is given over to the warning of a death penalty from the court because of those things that it includes that have death penalties of the court. And similar to this did they, may their memory be blessed, say in the first chapter of Eruvin 17b about the negative commandment of "let no man leave his place": Since it also includes carrying out from one domain to another - like the teaching that they expounded, [read, do not go out (yetseh), as] do not carry out (yotsee) - that it is from now a negative commandment that is given over to the warning of a death penalty from the court in some of its matters. And since it is so, we can say that we do not administer lashes for it, in all of its matters. And in exactly the same way, we can explain the negative commandment of not letting your animal do work here.

The commandment to honor father and mother: To honor father and mother, as it is stated (Exodus 20:12), "You shall honor your father and your mother." And the explanation (Kiddushin 31b) comes to [define it], "What does it mean to 'honor'? To feed, give drink, dress, bring in, and take out."

To not kill the innocent: To not kill a soul, as it is stated (Exodus 20:13), "You shall not kill."

To not reveal the nakedness of a man's wife: To not have intercourse with a man's wife, as it is stated (Exodus 20:13), "You shall not commit adultery." And the explanation comes that the undifferentiated expression, "adultery," indicates with a man's wife, as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Rashi on Exodus 20:13), "Adultery is only with a man's wife." And this negative commandment is repeated in the Order of Achrei Mot, as there it is written explicitly (Leviticus 18:20), "And to your neighbor's wife, etc."

To not reveal the nakedness of a man's wife: To not have intercourse with a man's wife, as it is stated (Exodus 20:13), "You shall not commit adultery." And the explanation comes that the undifferentiated expression, "adultery," indicates with a man's wife, as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Rashi on Exodus 20:13), "Adultery is only with a man's wife." And this negative commandment is repeated in the Order of Achrei Mot, as there it is written explicitly (Leviticus 18:20), "And to your neighbor's wife, etc."

To not steal a soul of Israel: To not steal a soul of Israel, as it is stated (Exodus 20:13), "You shall not steal." And the explanation comes that the verse is speaking about stealing souls (kidnapping) (Sanhedrin 86a).

To not testify falsely: To not testify [with] false testimony, as it states (Exodus 20:13), "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." And it is repeated in another place in another negative commandment - the "vain witness."

To not covet: To not bring up to our thoughts to do a machination to take for ourselves that which is someone else's of our brothers, as it is stated (Exodus 20:14), "You shall not covet the house of your neighbor, etc." And they, may their memory be blessed, have already proven (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14:3) from a different verse [in which] it is written (Deuteronomy 7:25), "do not covet, etc. and you shall take for yourself," that the negative commandment of "you shall not covet" is not completed until he acts upon it. And even if he gives money to his fellow for the object [that he coveted], he [still] transgresses the negative commandment of "you shall not covet." As the negative commandment of "you shall not covet" is not rectified by the giving of money, so long as he took it from him coercively. Such is the true explanation of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed.

Not to make the form of a man, even for decoration: Not to make the form of a man from any object - whether from metals, whether from wood, or stone, or anything else - and even for decoration, as it is stated (Exodus 20:20), "Do not make with me (eeti)." And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Rosh Hashanah 24b), "Do not make Me (oti," which can be spelled with the same letters as eeti), meaning to say, do not make a replica of that form - being the body of man - about which I wrote in My Torah (Genesis 1:26), "Let us make man in Our image." And the intention of the verse is from the angle of the intellect that He gave in him. And that which it stated, "in Our image," about the intellectual side of man is because all intellect is in Him, blessed be He. But there is no other comparison between Him, Blessed be he, and any creature (that preceded its matter) of His creatures, God forbid. And the negative commandment of "You shall not make a statue" is that we not make any form that will be worshiped, [whereas] this prohibition is specifically about the form of a man - that we should not make it at all, even for decoration. And this is to distance idolatry.

To not build [with] hewn stones: That we should not build an altar of stones that metal would touch, as it is stated (Exodus 20:22), "do not build of hewn (gazit) stones." The explanation of hewn (Ramban on Exodus 20:22) is when we chisel from the stone with an iron tool. And if [the altar] is built with hewn stones, it is disqualified.

To not take steps on the altar: To not ascend the altar with stairs, so that he not make large steps in his going up - as it is stated (Exodus 20:23), "And you shall not ascend My altar by stairs, that your nakedness not be exposed upon it." Rather, when he ascends there, he should walk slowly and with awe, [placing] his heel in front of his toe. And so is it said in the Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:23.

The prohibition of lo tachmod (Shemot 20:14) forbids one to pressure another to sell or give him an item the former desires (Shulchan Aruch C.M. 359:10). While young man number probably did not covet a specific item, the prohibition of lo tachmod nonetheless teaches that it is wrong to pressure someone to do something he does not wish to do. Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch (E H. 154:21) does not permit pressuring a husband to give his wife a get unless the husband’s improper behavior justifies such pressure (see Gray Matter 1:19 for further discussion of this issue).

R. Jacob Chai Zerichan develops a novel thesis on the basis of which he dismisses the solution offered by Hatam Sofer. Of the thirty-nine forbidden categories of "labor" on Shabbat, thirty-eight are derived from the verse "you shall do no work" (Exodus 20:10). The thirty-ninth, transfer of an object from a private domain to a public thoroughfare or transport of an object over a distance of four cubits in a public thoroughfare, is not derived from that verse but is the subject of a tradition received by Moses at Sinai (halakhah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai). Based upon Rambam's ruling, Hilkhot Melakhim 9:10, it has become a well-established principle that such traditions are directed solely to Jews, but are inapplicable and of no effect insofar as Noahides are concerned.²⁶Cf., however, infra, note 29 and accompanying text. Accordingly, argues Rabbi Zerichan, since "labor" is only that which is defined as such by Scripture, carrying a "burden" in a prohibited area does not constitute a form of "labor" insofar as non-Jews are concerned. Hence performing an act of this nature would not negate the "rest" which is forbidden to non-Jews over a twenty-four hour period.²⁷See also Pirḥei Nisan included by R. Yitzchak Reitbard in his Kehillat Yiẓḥak al ha-Torah (Vilna, 5660), Parashat Toldot. Pirḥei Nisan, discussing the problem of Sabbath observance by the Patriarchs, advances a somewhat modified form of this solution. He assumes that the status of the Patriarchs was “doubtful,” i.e., that it was not clear whether their status was that of Jews or that of Noahides. Accordingly, he indicates that they had the option of wearing a garment with ẓiẓit and making the express stipulation that if their status be that of Jews they don the garment with the intention of fulfilling the commandment, but that if their status be that of Noahides they have no intention to fulfill the commandment.
That discussion suggests an expedient that may readily be utilized by a prospective convert who is discomfited by the prospect of overt violation of Sabbath restrictions. Clearly, when the ẓiẓit are not worn for the purpose of fulfilling a miẓvah they constitute a “burden.” Accordingly, a non-Jew who desires to observe Shabbat might avail himself of the expedient of stipulating categorically that he dons the garment with ẓiẓit with the express intention of not fulfilling the miẓvah. Thus, for him, the ẓiẓit would constitute a burden.

Rabbi Kessler states, not without reason, that he does not understand the distinction formulated by Rabbi Woszner. This writer would express the distinction in a somewhat different manner. As stated by the Gemara, Shabbat 120b, the verse "you shall not do any work on the Sabbath day" (Exodus 20:8) serves to establish that labor is forbidden on Shabbat only if the labor is performed by means of a physical "act" (ma'aseh). A physical act is generally defined as an act involving movement of the body.

It seems to this writer that the concept that an act passively performed does not constitute a biblically forbidden form of labor is inherent in the commentary of Ralbag to Exodus 20:9. Ralbag states, "It is further clear that eating is not [a forbidden form of] labor; rather it enters into the category of natural acts for all living creatures perform this act." Ralbag's comments, if taken literally, are problematic, to say the least. Trapping or capturing animals is a forbidden form of labor on Shabbat despite the fact that it is an activity in which brute animals also engage. Suckling a lactating animal is a form of expressing milk that is forbidden of Shabbat³⁰Such suckling is indeed only rabbinically forbidden but solely because it is not a “natural” way for man to express milk rather than because the act is not at all a form of labor. despite the fact that animals also obtain milk by nursing.³¹See R. Shlomoh Fisher, Bet Yishai, I, no. 17 and R. Isaac Malzan, Shevitat ha-Shabbat, Melekhet Dash, sec. 99.

It is correct that when you say "and chose us" to remember standing at Mt. Sinai , concerning 'chose us", as it is written "lest you forget the things....the day you stood before the Eternal Your God at Horeb(Deuteronomy 4:9)." And when you say, "Your great name, " remember the incident of Amalek that The Name is not whole until one wipes out the descendants of Amalek, as it is written, "Remember what Amalek did to you ..."(Deuteronomy 25:16)" And when you say, "To acknowledge You" remember that the mouth was created to acknowledge Him who is blessed and not to speak words of gossip. And remember the incident of Miriam, as it is written, "Remember what the Eternal your God did to Miriam...(Deuteronomy 24:8)" And when you say "In love" remember concerning what is written, "Remember how you provoked the Eternal your God in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:7)." And when you read, "And when you remember all of God's commandments", remember that Shabbat is equal to all the commandments, as it is written, " Remember the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8)." As it is said, never forget the Sabbath day. And like Amram of blessed memory: From one Sabbath to the next Sabbath. And therefore in the Psalm of the day we read: "This is the first day of the Sabbath....." And when we say, "from the four corners of the earth," place the corners of the tallit that are upon his shoulders to fall downward. (Magen Avraham, small paragraph, Bet, and we are not concerned with this. See Pri Etz Chayim, Gate of the Recitation of the Shma, Chapter 3, and you will understand what we are not accustomed to. And be precise and find easy.)

R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Hayyim, III, no. 96, and Be-Ẓel ha-Hokhmah, I, no. 31, sec. 8, similarly rule that a person traveling by plane from west to east on Tish'ah be-Av may break his fast as soon as he experiences nightfall⁵⁸Iggerot Mosheh explicitly asserts that, conversely, a person traveling east to west on a fast day must continue fasting until nightfall occurs in the place in which he finds himself. Cf., however, R. Elijah Zlotnick, Pri Eliyahu, III, no. 17; and R. Samuel ha-Levi Woszner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, VII, no. 76 and VIII, no. 261. See also Yisra’el ve-ha-Zemanim, I, no. 46, chap. 4. even though he has not fasted a full twenty-four hour period.⁵⁹R. Eliezer Rotter, Mevakshei Torah, no. 25 (Sivan, 5759), p. 384, in discussing the situation of a person travelling during the night proceeding a fast day from west to east e.g., from Israel to the United States, reports that R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv informed him that the traveler must observe the fast from the time that the fast begins in his place of arrival and hence, if the plane flies the route which takes the traveler over Greenland, where it is day, and then south, where it is again night, the period of daylight may be ignored. This writer assumes that the terminology in which this ruling is conveyed is imprecise and that the essence of Rabbi Eliashiv’s response was that commencement of the fast is not determined by the time at the point of embarkation but at the place where the traveler finds himself and hence, travelling from west to east, it will never be earlier than the time of daybreak in the United States. If so, that position is unremarkable. However, Rabbi Eliashiv’s ruling with regard to the period of overflight in an area in which it is already day is subject to challenge. Presumably, a person who crosses the halakhic dateline to an area in which it is Shabbat would, according to Ḥazon Ish, be required to observe the period he spends on that side of the dateline as Shabbat even if he intends to recross the dateline the same day. The same principle would apply to determining the onset of the eighth day for purposes of circumcision of an infant,⁶⁰See R. Elijah Posek, Koret ha-Brit (Lemberg, 5653), 262:2 and R. Shabbetai Lipschutz, Brit Avot (Munkαcs, 5674), no. 10, kuntres aḥaron. for determining the proper time for a woman's immersion in a mikveh⁶¹See Teshuvot Be’er Mosheh, VII, Kuntres Elektrik, no. 116. and for various other halakhic matters.⁶²The gloss of Dagul me-Revavah to Shakh, Yoreh De‘ah 195:4 is of seminal importance in establishing the principle that halakhic provisions dependent upon completion of a period of a day or of a multiple number of days do not require expiration of a full twenty-four hour period or periods. In each of those cases there is no reason why a person may not embark upon a trip in which such a phenomenon will occur. That would also appear to be the case with regard to crossing the dateline in circumstances in which the duration of the traveler's observance of Shabbat or of his fast will be diminished.⁶³However, some authorities maintain that it is improper to cross the halakhic dateline in order to avoid observance of the Sabbath. See Teshuvot Ereẓ Ẓevi, no. 44, who cites a comment of the Mekhilta cited by Ramban, Exodus 20:8, “ ‘Remember [the Sabbath day]’ before it comes,” as establishing an obligation to assure in advance that the seventh day be observed as the Sabbath. See also Teshuvot Bnei Ẓion, I, no. 14, sec. 21 and R. Chaim Kanievsky, cited by Ta’arikh Yisra’el, no. 1, note 42, s.v. ve-od.

According to this analysis, hal'itehu la-rasha is not at all an independent principle of Halakhah justifying a course of action. Rather, it is a rationale explaining why legislation was not promulgated in a particular instance. Hal'itehu la-rasha explains only why transgressors were not shielded from further transgression; hal'itehu la-rasha⁵²There may well be entirely different grounds to justify the student’s course of action in the case of the poisoned sandwich. The Gemara, Ketubot 86a and Ḥullin 132b, declares that a person may be compelled to fulfill a commandment, e.g., the miẓvah of sukkah or of the four species, by means of physical force, if necessary, “until his life departs.” There is considerable controversy with regard to whether the recalcitrant person may be beaten only within an “inch of his life” since, if he dies, he certainly will not fulfill the commandment, or whether he may be beaten until he expires. Rambam, Sefer ha-Miẓvot, introduction, shoresh 14; idem, Commentary on the Mishnah, Ketubot 49a; Ramban, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Leviticus 20:8; Ḥiddushei ha-Ran, Bava Meẓi’a 61b and Ḥullin 132b; R. Meir Simchah ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, Or Sameaḥ, Hilkhot Mamrim 4:3, state that lethal force may be employed. However, Rabbenu Yonah, cited by Shitah Mekubbeẓet, Ketubot 86a, maintains that deadly force may not be applied in order to compel fulfillment of a miẓvah. See also R. Meir Eisenstadt, Teshuvot Amudei Esh, no. 1, klal 15. Amudei Esh endeavors to explain Rambam’s use of the term “until he dies” as a metaphor for weakness. Cf., Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, chap. 12. Or Sameaḥ asserts that, “when it is certain to us” that duress will not accomplish the desired result, not even a hair on the head of the would-be transgressor may be disturbed.
Keẓot ha-Ḥoshen 3:1 rules that only a bet din comprised of ordained judges competent to impose capital punishment is authorized to use physical force to enforce specific performance with regard to fulfilling a commandment. The postion of Keẓot is reflected in the work of an early-day authority, R. Eliezer of Metz, Sefer Yere’im, I, no. 169, and Ramban, Exodus 20:8. Netivot ha-Mishpat 3:1 disagrees in maintaining that judicial authority is not required for this purpose but that every Jew is empowered and obligated to secure observance of commandments even, if necessary, by use of force. Or Sameaḥ, Hilkhot Mamrim 4:3, concurs in that position but maintains that, when duress is warranted in execution of a divorce, only a bet din can compel such action because execution of a divorce requires acquiescence. See also R. Chaim of Volozhin, responsum no. 2, s.v. uba-zeh, published as an appendix to R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, Teshuvot Bet ha-Levi, I. Cf., the distinctions made by Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥoshen Mishpat, no. 177, sec. 3 and Ḥiddushei ha-Rim, Ḥoshen Mishpat 1:28 as well as R. Shimon Shkop, Sha’arei Yosher, sha’ar 7, chap. 5.
In his response to Netivot ha-Mishpat, the author of Keẓot ha-Ḥoshen, Meshovev ha-Netivot 3:1, distinguishes between positive commandments and negative prohibitions: Enforcement of positive obligations, he maintains, requires judicial authority but a properly constituted bet din may apply coercive measures even to the point of death. However, prevention of transgression of a negative commandment, he asserts, is a private obligation and hence the force applied may not be lethal in nature. This is also the position of R. Joseph Babad, Minḥat Ḥinnukh, miẓvah 8, sec. 10, and miẓvah 55, sec. 20. See also R. Jonathan Eibeschutz, Urim ve-Tumim 4:1 and Teshuvot Maharya, II, no. 164 as well as Sedei Ḥemed, Asifat Dinim, ma’arekhet heh, no. 4. Cf., however, R. Chaim Palaggi, Ḥikkekei Lev, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 19.
Teshuvot Radvaz, IV, no. 1,329, (258) seems to rule that physical force may be used only by a person having authority over the would-be transgressor, e.g., a father or a master. See the terminology employed by Rema, Ḥoshen Mishpat 421:13. However, R. Ya’akov Yesha’ya Blau, Pitḥei Ḥoshen, V, chap. 2, notes 19 and 20, understands Radvaz’ comments as being consistent with the position of Yam shel Shlomoh cited later in this note. See also Sedei Ḥemed, Asifat Dinim, ma’arekhet heh, no. 4. However, R. Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, Ha’amek She’elah, Parashat Va-Yeshev, She’ilta 27, sec. 6, asserts that physical force may not be used but that, post factum, at least in the case of a master vis-à-vis his slave, there is no liability. See also sources cited by Pitḥei Ḥoshen, V, chap. 2, notes 19 and 20.
Thus, virtually all authorities agree that physical force may be employed to prevent transgression of a negative commandment. Accordingly, physical force would be warranted in order to identify a thief and thereby prevent further acts of theft. In the case under discussion, although a lethal poison was administered, the student was entirely confident of the ability of the already prepared antidote to avert a fatal result. Administration of the poison coupled with its antidote certainly constituted physical force — but non-lethal force is warranted in order to prevent prospective infraction of the prohibition against theft.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to be mindful of the comment of R. Shlomoh Luria, Yam shel Shlomoh, Bava Kamma 3:9, to the effect that, although technically correct, physical force of any kind should not be employed other than by designated authorities. The danger of, and possible abuses arising from, private parties taking the law into their own hands are readily apparent. is not an invitation to entice malfeasors to further transgression and certainly not a license to cause them physical harm.⁵³For a discussion of why theft is deemed a more grievous transgression than orlah and kerem reva’i see Teshuvot Be’er Mosheh, V, no. 162, sec. 9 and cf., Be-Ẓel ha-Ḥokhmah, I, no. 27. Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, II, no. 1, cites R. Meir Arak, Minḥat Pittim, Yoreh De’ah, no. 1, who explains that theft is a more serious transgression because it is a sin against both God and man whereas orlah and kerem reva’i are only sins against God.
See Teshuvot Emek Halakhah, II, no. 4, who seeks to demonstrate that Rambam’s limitation of the principle is compelled by an analysis of the situation with regard to orlah and to kerem reva’i presented by the Mishnah. Emek Halakhah argues that, if hali’tehu la-rasha is a rule of general application there is no reason to caution against orlah and kerem reva’i even during the sabbatical year. Fruit whose status is doubtful, i.e., the fruit may possibly be prohibited, is also forbidden and hence, if the principle hal’itehu la-rasha were to apply, there would be no need to mark such fruit. Accordingly, reasons Emek Halakhah, Rambam must have deduced that hal’itehu la-rasha applies only during the years in which the produce is not ownerless and is occasioned by the more serious transgression of theft. Of course, that argument fails if, as postulated by Tuv Ta’am va-Da’at, hal’itehu la-rasha does not apply in situations in which all transgression can be prevented; accordingly, it is in the seventh year, during which the only possible infraction is orlah or kerem reva’i, that notice in the form of marking the fruit as orlah or kerem reva’i is required.

It is from the roots of this commandment to affix in our hearts and make a strong impression in our minds [about] the matter of the world having been created. As (Exodus 20, 11) "in six days did God make the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day" - in which He did not create anything - He imposed rest on Himself. And in order to remove and uproot and eradicate from our thoughts the idea of the eternity [of the world] - which the deniers of the Torah believe in, through which they destroy all its principles and break through its walls - did the requirement come upon us to expend all our time, day by day and year by year, for this matter, by counting six years and resting on the seventh so that this matter will never depart from between our eyes for all time. And this is similar to the manner in which we count the days of the week [by dividing them] into six days of work and the seventh is a day of rest. Therefore, He, blessed be He, did command to render ownerless all that the land produces in this year - in addition to resting during it (i.e. during the year) - so that a person will remember that the land which produces fruits for him every year does not produce them by its [own] might and virtue. For there is a Master over it and over its master - and when He wishes, He commands him (i.e. the master of the land) to render them (i.e. the fruit) ownerless. And there is another benefit in this matter - to acquire the trait of letting go (i.e. of one's possessions), for there is no one more generous than he who gives without hope for recompense. And there is another benefit - the outcome of this is that a person will add to his trust in God, may He be blessed, since anyone who finds it in his heart to give and abandon to the world all of the produce of his lands and his ancestral inheritance for an entire year - and educates himself and his family through this for all of his days - will never have the trait of stinginess overcome him too much, nor will he have a deficient amount of trust.

Moreover, points out Rabbi Soloveichik, genevat da'at, i.e., misleading an individual, even a non-Jew, is a violation of the prohibition "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:13). Accordingly, assistance in misleading a gullible individual constitutes the placing of a stumbling-block before the perpetrator of the fraud. Furthermore, Targum Yonatan, Leviticus 20:3, regards all such assistance as intrinsically proscribed by the prohibition "Thou shall not steal." According to Targum Yonatan the prohibition encompasses, not only the act of theft per se, but also any action from which theft results.

From the expression "And speaking words"²⁷See paragraph 1. our Sages, of blessed memory, learned that only speaking [of prohibited subjects] is forbidden but thinking [about them] is permitted. Therefore, thinking about business affairs is permitted. Nevertheless, for the sake of the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos²⁸Oneg Shabbos = taking pleasure in Shabbos. it is a mitzvah not to think about business at all,²⁹Reading about business is forbidden (Sh’ilas Ya’avetz I, 162) as well as listening when the subject is discussed (see paragraph 10). and you should view it as if all your work has been completed. And this is [the intent of what is] written:³⁰Exodus 20: 9. "Six days will you labor and do all your work." But man cannot complete all his work in the course of one week! Thus, [we deduce] that man should consider every Shabbos as if his work is concluded.³¹Mechilta—Parshas Yisro. You cannot experience a greater pleasure. Certainly, you should not think about anything that causes you concern or anxiety.³²Bais Yosef, Rabbeinu Yonah.

It is forbidden to kill lice on a table at which you are eating.¹Shulhan Arukh, “Orah Hayim,” 167, Mogen Avraham, note 13. And he who kills lice on it, is as if he killed on the altar, for the table is the altar,²Hagigah 27a. as it is said “and he said unto me: ‘This is the table that is before the Lord’” (Ezek. 41:22). And for this reason we cover knives during the grace, for it is said “For if thou lift up thy sword upon it, thou hast profaned it” (Exod. 20:25). It is forbidden to write in a book “so and so owes me so much and so much.” “And round about Him it stormeth mightily” (Ps. 15:3). From this we learn that the Holy One, blessed be He, deals with the good strictly, even to a hair’s breadth.³Yebamoth 121b. Because Sarah lied about Isaac, “Then Sarah denied, saying, etc.… ” (Gen. 18:15) therefore the circumstance precipitating her death came through Isaac, for her soul took flight and she died when she heard the report of the binding of Isaac.⁴Rashi, Genesis 23:2. The news precipitated her death.

That the court not administer a death sentence on the Shabbat: That the judges not administer sentences on Shabbat, meaning to say that they not kill on the Shabbat one who has been made liable for the death penalty by the court, as it is stated (Exodus 35:3), "You shall not kindle fire throughout your settlements on the Shabbat day." And the explanation comes about this (Yevamot 6b) that the court should not burn someone who has become liable for burning. And the same is true for the other death penalties. And it is [correct] for us to expound this thing from [this verse]; as behold, it is not necessary for itself, as behold, it is already written in another place, "you shall not do work" (Exodus 20:10) - and kindling is for the sake of work. Rather, it is written to teach [another] matter. And they explained about it that it came to teach us this [matter] that we said. And this is the language of Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 35:3:2 (at the beginning of Parshat Vayakhel): "'You shall not kindle fire' - burning was in the general category [of forbidden work], yet it was [specified, in order] to teach that just like burning is particular in that it is one of the death penalties of the court and [we see here] that it does not push off the Shabbat, so too all of the other death penalties do not push off the Shabbat." And even with all that we have learned in this verse, it should also be expounded [for] that which they also expounded on it (Yevamot 6b), "Kindling was [specified] to separate" - meaning to say that one who does many principle categories of work at one time in one forgetful spell would be liable a sin-offering for each and every [type of] work by itself. And in the Gemara of the Westerners they said (Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:6), "'In all of your settlements' - Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, 'From here [we learn] about courts, that they should not judge on Shabbat.'"

That is that He commanded us to tell about the exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan - at the beginning of the night - according to the speaker's linguistic abilities. And it is better for one to add upon the telling and stretch out the words, by magnifying that which God did for us, what the Egyptians did to us in terms of injustice and oppression and how God avenged us upon them, and to thank Him, may He be exalted, for all of the good with which He benefitted us. It is like they said, "Anyone who is expansive in his telling about the exodus from Egypt - behold, he is praiseworthy." And the verse that appears about this command is His saying, "And you shall tell your son on that day" (Exodus 13:8). And the explanation (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:8) comes [to say], "'And you shall tell your son' - perhaps from Rosh Chodesh [Nissan. Hence] we learn to say, 'on that day.' Perhaps while it is still day. [Hence] we learn to say, 'for the sake of this' - when [this] matzah and bitter herbs are resting in front of you," meaning, you recount [it] at the beginning of the night." And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 13:2) is, "It is implied from its being stated, 'when your son asks you' (Exodus 13:14) - perhaps if he asks you, you tell him, etc. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and you shall tell your son' - even though he does not ask you. I only [know] at the time that he has a son. [If he is] by himself [or] with others, from where [do I know it? Hence], we learn to say, 'And Moshe said to the people, "Remember this day"'" - meaning to say that He commanded them to remember it, just like He said, "Remember the Shabbat day" (Exodus 20:8). And you already know the language of their saying, "And even if we are all sages, all understanding, all knowing the whole Torah, it is a commandment upon us to tell about the exodus from Egypt" (Haggadah). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Pesachim (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 8.)

Laws of Honoring Father and Mother It is a positive commandment that a person should honor his father and his mother and fear them. And he must be very careful about their honor and about their fear, since their honor is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent: As it is written (Exodus 20:11), "Honor your father and your mother"; and it is written (Proverbs 3:9), "Honor the Lord with your wealth." And regarding their fear, it is written (Leviticus 19:3), "A man shall fear his mother and his father"; and regarding the fear of the Omnipresent, it is stated (Deuteronomy 6:13), "You shall fear the Lord, your God." And the Sages said (Kiddushin 30b), "There are three partners in a person: The Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother [...] When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says, 'I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honored Me as well.'" With honor, He had the father precede the mother, as it is written, "Honor your father and your mother'; but with fear, He had the mother precede the father, as it is written, "A man shall fear his mother and his father" - to teach that both of them are the same, both for honor and for fear. And what is fear and what is honor? Fear: One may not stand in his place and one may not sit in his place - the explanation is in his particular place to stand amidst the council of elders with his colleagues in counsel. But the Ramah (R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia) wrote that the same is the law regarding his particular place to sit in his house. And he may not contradict his words, nor may he determine his words. And Rashi explained [that] if [his father] was disagreeing about a matter of law with someone else, he may not say, "The words of x appear [correct]." But the Ramah wrote that this is not necessary [to say], as that is contradicting his words. Rather even if the words of his father appear [correct] to him, he may not say, "The words of my father appear [correct]" - as it appears as if he is determining [the correctness of] the words of his father. However, if he has an answer to answer those that are arguing [with his father], he may answer [them]. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3): He should not call him by his name - not in his lifetime and not in his death - but he should rather say, "Father, my teacher." If his name is the same as the name of others, he should [also] change their names. And it appears to me that one only needs to be careful about this with a name that is unusual, such that not everyone uses it. But with names that all of the people call [their offspring], such as Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moshe and Aharon and that which is similar to them, one can use them to call others in any language and at any time and there is no [problem] with this. To here [are his words]. And that which he wrote that he should not call others whose names are the same as his father with their names is a wonder! And up to where (how extensive) is their fear? Even if one was dressed in fine clothing and sitting at the head of the community, and his father and mother came and tore his clothes, struck him on his head and spit in front of him - he should not embarrass them but rather be quiet and fear the King of the kings of kings, who commanded him about this. As if flesh and blood had decreed something that is more distressing than this upon him, he would not have [even] twitched about the matter; all the mores so, with the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. And what is honor? One gives [his parent] food and he gives him drink, and he gives it with a pleasant countenance, and he does not show him an angry face. As even if he feeds him fattened fowl every day, but he shows him an angry face, he is punished for it. And that which he gives him food and he gives him drink - that is from [the resources of] the father, if he has; but the son is not obligated to give him from his [own resources]. However if the father does not have and the son does have, we force him and he sustains the father according to what he can [afford]. But if the son does not have, he is not obligated to [knock on] doors to feed his father. But he is obligated to honor him with his body, even though through this, he [becomes] idle from his work and [then] become required to [knock on] doors. And the Ramah wrote [that this is] specifically when the son has sustenance that will sustain [himself] that day. But if he does not have [it], he is not obligated to be idle from his work and to [knock] on doors. And he should serve him in other things with which a servant serves his master. And he is obligated to honor him in the rest of his ways - in his buying and selling, and the doing of his wants. How is this? If he needs to request anything in the city and he knows that they would fulfill his request for the sake of his father - even though he knows that they would also fulfill the thing for his sake, nevertheless, he should not say, "Do this one thing for my sake," but rather, "for the sake of Father," in order to attach the honor to his father. And likewise with anything that is like this, he should include [him] in all of his words, such that he is concerned about the honor of his father and his fear. However if he knows that they will not fulfill his [request] for the sake of his father, he should request [it] for his own sake and not for the sake of his father, as it would only be a disgrace for him - since they will not do it for his sake. And one is obligated to stand before him. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3) [that] a father who is the student of his son - the father does not stand before the son. And not only that, but the son must stand before his father, even though he is his student. And my master, my father the Rosh, may his memory blessed, wrote that each one must stand before the other. And up to where (how extensive) is honor? Even if [the parent] takes his purse full of coins and throws it to the sea in front of him, he should not embarrass him. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:7) [that it is] even if he threw the purse of the son to the sea. But RI explained that according to that which we decide that he need not honor him from his [own resources], if he throws the son's purse, he may prevent him. Rather [the Talmud's case] is saying with the purse of his father, he may not embarrass him in order to prevent him, even though he will inherit it. The Ramah wrote that which the son can embarrass the father with his [own] purse is only before he threw it to the sea, as it is possible that he will be prevented and not throw it. But after he throws it, it is forbidden to embarrass him; as what has happened, has happened. So now when he is silent, it is honor that does not involve financial loss, so he is obligated about it. But it is permissible to make a claim against him in court. He is obligated to honor him even after his death. How is that? If he says a matter he heard from his mouth, he should not say, "So said Father, my teacher." Rather, he should say, "So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting." To what does this apply? Within twelve months [of his death]. But after twelve months, when he mentions him, he says: May his memory be for a blessing." The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:10), "If one's father or mother has become mentally insane, he should make an effort to behave toward them according to their state of mind until they will be shown mercy. But if it is impossible for him to stand [it], because they have become utterly insane, he may leave them and go away, charging others to take proper care of them." But the Ravaad wrote, "This is not a correct ruling - if he leaves them and goes away, who will he command to watch them?" If one saw that his father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him, "You transgressed a Torah matter." Rather, he should say to him, "Father, such and such is written in the Torah." And from his reminding him, he will understand on his own and will not be embarrassed. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink," and there was another commandment before him to do: If it is possible for the commandment to be done by others, he leaves it for others to do and occupies himself with the honor of his father. But if there are not others there to do it, he should occupy himself with the commandment and leave the honor of his father, since he and his father are obligated by the commandment. Torah study is greater than honoring father and mother. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink"; and his mother said to him, "Give me water to drink," he leaves the honor of his mother and occupies himself with the honor of his father, since his mother is also obligated in honoring his father. But if they are divorced - such that she is not obligated in his honor - then both of them are the same, to honor them one like the other. If his father said to him to transgress a Torah matter - whether he says to him to transgress a negative commandment or he says to him to negate (not do) a positive commandment, even a [rabbinic] commandment - he should not listen to him. And my master, my father the Rosh wrote in a responsum [that] if the father commands his son not to speak with x, such the he should not forgive him for what he did to him until a set time; whereas the son wants to appease him, except that he is concerned about his father's command, he should not be concerned about his father's command. As it is forbidden to hate any person unless he saw him sinning. And [that] the father commanded him to hate; it is not in his power to make him transgress a Torah matter! And it is the same with a man or a woman - they are the same regarding the honor and fear of father and mother. However a man has [the wherewithal] in his hands to do [it], whereas a woman does not have [the wherewithal] in her hands to do [it], since the authority of others (her husband) is upon her. Therefore if she is divorced or widowed, they are both the same. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:11) [that] a mamzer (someone born of a forbidden union) is obligated in honoring his father and his mother and in their fear, even though he is exempt about hitting them and cursing them until they repent. Even if one's father is wicked and sinful, he must honor him and fear him. But it appears to me that since he is wicked, he is not obligated to honor him. [It is] as we say (Bava Kamma 94b) concerning [those] whose father left them a stolen cow, [that] they are obligated to return [it] for the honor of their father. And it asked, "Behold, he does not do the deeds of your people" - its explanation is, so they are [for that reason] not obligated to honor him. And it answers, "When he repented." Therefore the whole time he has not repented, they are not obligated to honor him. Even though a person is obligated to fear his father and his mother greatly, it is forbidden [for the parent] to make his yoke heavy upon his children and to be exacting with them about his honor, so as not to bring them to an obstacle. Rather he should forgive and avert his eyes from them; since when a father foregoes his honor, his honor is forgiven. And they would excommunicate someone who strikes his adult son; as behold, he is transgressing, "you shall not put an obstacle in front of the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). A person is obligated to honor the wife of his father - even though she is not his mother - so long as his father is alive; and he is obligated to honor his mother's wife, so long as his mother is alive. But after [the blood relative's death], he is not obligated in their honor. Nevertheless, it is a commandment to honor them, even after the death. A person is obligated in the honor of his older brother like the honor of his father. And he is obligated to honor his father in law, as it is written (that David said to Shaul in I Samuel 24:12), "My father, my father, see and see."

And this is the language of Rambam at the beginning of the first chapter of Hilkhot Shabbat: "Cessation from melakhah on the seventh day is a positive mitzvah as it says (Exodus 20:9) 'and on the Seventh Day you shall desist.' and all who do melakhah on the seventh day negate a positive mitzvah and violate a prohibition as it says 'do not do any melakhah.' And what is the liability for an act of melakhah? If one does it intentionally with malice aforethought he is liable for 'karet' and if there are two witnesses and a warning then he is liable to be stoned. And if he does the melakhah unintentionally then he brings a hatat sacrifice. And all places where the word 'exempt' appears in the context of Shabbat it means 'exempt' by the laws of the Torah but forbidden by rabbinic law and so said our Sages in the beginning of Massechet Shabbat 'all exemptions of Shabbat mean exempt but still forbidden except for these three exceptions...' unless it says 'permitted' or 'not liable whatsoever." And the category of exempt from punishment yet still forbidden when violated is punished by lashes for a rabbinic violation. 

He prohibited us from putting our thoughts to coveting that which is our brothers' (fellow Jews), and to desire it. For this is the entranceway to fabricating machinations in order to acquire it. And the language of the prohibition about this content is His saying, "you shall not desire your neighbor’s house" (Deuteronomy 5:18). And these two negative commandments are not about the same content. Rather the first negative commandment - and that is, "You shall not covet" - is prohibiting the acquisition of what is someone else's; whereas the second negative commandment prohibits even only to desire it in our hearts. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14:2) is, "Here (Exodus 20:14) it states 'You shall not covet,' and later, it says, 'You shall not desire' - to make liable for desiring in itself, and for coveting in itself." And there, they said, "From where [do we know] that if one desires; in the end, he will covet? As it is stated, 'Do not desire [...] and you will not covet.' From where [do we know] that if he does covet; in the end, he will use force and steal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and they will covet fields and steal [them]' (Micah 2:2)." And the explanation of this is that if he saw something nice with someone else: If his thought about it overwhelms him and he desires it, he has transgressed, "You shall not desire." But if he becomes occupied with the love of that thing, to the point that he makes efforts to bring it to himself - and he does not cease from begging him and pressuring him to sell it to him or to trade it to him for something better than it - behold he has already also transgressed, "you shall not covet." Once he acquired the thing that belonged to his fellow, who did not want to sell it - but he pressured him and tricked him, until he acquired it and it became his - he has already transgressed two negative commandments, "You shall not desire," and, "You shall not covet." However if that man prevented himself from selling or exchanging [it] - on account of his own love for that thing - [the man who desires it] will surely take it by duress and force, as a result of the intensity of his soul's longing for that thing. He will [then] transgress the prohibition of, "you shall not rob." Behold, that is the difference between, "You shall not desire," and, "You shall not covet." (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1.)

That He prohibited the judge - not to kill someone clean and innocent. And that is His saying, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:15). (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)

And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, learned the matter that we are killed [rather than transgress] sexual immorality (Sanhedrin 74a), because the betrothed maiden is compared [by the Torah] to a murderer: Just as a murderer should be killed and not transgress, as we said; so too must a man be killed and not have intercourse with her. As the Torah does not tell metaphors for nothing, but only to teach a matter. They also had support from the tradition, which is an iron wall for all of their words. And the early authorities (rishonim) wrote that we only say a person must be killed and not transgress [about] transgressing a sin. But to not perform a commandment, he should transgress and not be killed, and not perform the commandment. And [it is] similar to what they, may their memory be blessed, said about Esther (Sanhedrin 74b), "She was ground of the earth" - meaning, it was similar to [a situation of] 'sit and do not act,' as behold a woman has intercourse against her will. And even if the woman assisted in the intercourse after her impulse covered her, she is not liable with this - as there is no greater coercion than this. And that which we find stories about the early pious ones that were killed even [so that they not participate in] the negation of a [positive] commandment - and similar to what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:6), "What is to you to go out to stoning? Because I circumcised my son. What is to you to go out to hanging? Because I took the lulav" - that was an [extra] measure of piety that they did and they saw that [their] generation needed this. And they were great sages fitting for this, to decide about this. As otherwise they would not have been permitted to give over their souls to die - as not everyone has permission to be killed for [other matters] than those that they, may their memory be blessed, obligated us about. Moreover, [such a person] would be liable for his life (Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 5:4).

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a male. And that is His saying, "Any you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman" (Leviticus 18:22). And the prohibition about this exact content has already been repeated with His saying, "and there shall not be a male prostitute from the Children of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:18). And that is the correct approach - that this negative commandment is repeated to strengthen it; and not that it is a prohibition about the one who receives intercourse. Rather, we learn from His saying, "You shall not lie," [both] about the one who lies and the one who is lain with. And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54b), it is explained that it is Rabbi Yishmael that positions, "and there shall not be a male prostitute," as a prohibition for the one being lain with. Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell, is liable for two [sin-offerings] according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. But Rabbi Akiva says, "It is not necessary. Behold, He says, 'And you shall not lie (tishkav) with a male.' Read into it, 'You shall not be lain with (tishakhev).'" Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell is only liable for one [sin-offering]. And they said about the reason for this, "You shall not lie and you shall not be lain with are the same." However, "and there shall not be a male prostitute," appears - according to my opinion - to strengthen [it]; like He said, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13), which is the prohibition of a married woman, as we explained, yet afterwards He said, "And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed" (Leviticus 18:19). And there are many examples like this, as we explained in the Ninth Principle. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning; and if he is not stoned, he is surely [punished] with excision if he was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering.

And it appears that [also] included in this commandment is that anyone who the members of the community have chosen to appoint appointees over them for any matter, that they should put all of their attention and intellect [to it], to appoint those appropriate and good for that appointment that the community requires. And he should not be frightened from any man, to appoint someone that is not appropriate. And the Sages said (Avodah Zarah 52b, Sanhedrin 7b) about someone who sets up a judge that is not proper, [that it is] as if he puts up a stone pillar, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:22) [soon after the commandment to set up judges], "and you shall not set up a pillar for yourself." And if it is a place where there are Torah scholars in it, they said that it is like planting a tree-god, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:21), "You shall not plant a tree-god, any tree, beside the altar of the Lord, your God." And they also said (Sanhedrin 7b) that anyone who appoints a judge because of his wealth, about this is it stated (Shemot 20:20), "You shall not make with Me gods of silver and gods of gold." And they spoke at length about this matter and said (Talmud Yerushalmi Bikkurim 3:3) that it is forbidden to stand [for judgement] in front of a judge who gave money in order that he be appointed a judge. And they treated his honor very lightly, and said about him that the cloak with which he wraps himself should be like a donkey saddle in your eyes. And it was the way of the early Sages to flee from being appointed judges (Sanhedrin 14a), except in a place where there was no one greater than them.

And do not wonder to say, "And how is it in the hand of a man to prevent his heart from desiring the storehouse of every delightful vessel that he sees in the hand of his fellow, whereas he is totally empty of them; and how does the Torah bring a prevention about that which is impossible for a man to uphold?" As the thing is not like this, and only silly evildoers and those that sin with their souls say it. As truly, it is in the hand of a man to prevent himself and his thoughts and his desires from anything that he wants. And [it is] within his control and his cognizance to distance and to bring close his want for all things according to his will. And his heart is given into his hand; to anything that he wants can he incline it. And God - in front of Whom are all hidden things - 'searches all the rooms of the belly, sees the kidney and the heart.' There is not one from all of the thoughts of man - little or big, good or bad - that is hidden from Him; and it is not covered from His eyes. [Hence] He will bring vengeance upon those that transgress His will in their hearts, and 'safeguards kindness for the thousands [of generations] for those that love Him,' who dedicate their thoughts to His service. As there is nothing as good for a man as good and pure thought, as it is the beginning of all actions, and their end. And this is apparently the matter of the 'good heart,' that the Sages praised in Tractate Avot 2:9. And the proof that these two negative commandments are different in their content and considered two [distinct commandments] is that which they said in Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 20:14, "'You shall not covet your neighbor's house' (Exodus 20:14), and later it states, 'and you shall not desire,' to make liable for the desire on its own and for the coveting on its own." And there, it [also] says, "From where [do I know] that if he desires, his end will be to covet? [Hence,] we learn to say 'you shall not desire' 'and you shall not covet.' From where [do I know] that if a man coveted, his end will be to steal? [Hence,] we learn to say 'They covet fields, and steal' (Michah 2:2)."