Halakhah do Królów I 12:78

And thus the utensil, the knife, with which food is cut into pieces is called a ma’akhelet because it annihilates and destroys, as in the expression, “you shall consume (ve-‘akhalta) all the peoples.”³Dt. 7:16: “You shall destroy all the peoples” (NJSB). Ma’akhelet is the term for the knife with which Abraham prepares to slaughter Isaac in Gen 22:10. And the verse which uses va-yokhlu (“they ate”) to refer to what the ministering angels were doing teaches this,⁴Gen 18:8, in the story of the angels visiting Abraham at Mamre. as our sages z”l taught in a midrash about the three calves that Abraham brought to them. “One after another each one went up and disappeared (kalah) off the table, and Abraham when he realized this, brought some more meat almost continually time after time, like a person who kept increasing the number of whole burnt offerings he sacrificed on the altar.”⁵Gen. R. 48:16. And likewise about Adam it is written, “She also gave some to her husband, and he ate (va-yokhal).”⁶Gen 3:6The word va-yokhal (“and he ate”) proclaims his sin both by his deed and by his thought. By his deed: that is that he caused the tree to lose its fruit, and ate it despite his being warned not to: “for as soon as you eat of it, you will die.”⁷Gen 2:17. His thought: that is that he destroyed, cut off, and made like the branch of the tree was a thing in and of itself, and if so, everything suffers destruction and annihilation, in both physical and intellectual things.⁸R. Bahya alludes here to the kabbalistic idea that the sin of Adam also involved “the cutting of the shoots,” the intellectual error of mistaking the part for the whole of creation. This had profound cosmic implications, since by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Adam not only physically separated the fruit from the tree, he intellectually “separated” it from its heavenly image above, its source of power and energy. This intellectual separation cuts the divine “pipeline” connecting the lower and upper worlds, effectively blocking the empowering flow of divine energy between the two worlds. It is precisely this state of affairs, the consequence of Adam’s sin, that the table blessings R. Bahya discusses in the First Gate is intended to repair. And so when you are found saying the word va-yokhal, it includes the destruction (hashhatah) of both something below and the destruction of something above, as it is written, “your people have gone bad (shihet),”⁹Ex 32:7. This is from the story of the Golden Calf. God is speaking to Moses, and instead of referring to the Israelites as “My people” as He usually does, God calls them “your – i.e., Moses’ – people,” much as parents often pass the buck to one another when their children have misbehaved (as does Moses, too, replying to God in Ex 32:11). I think R. Bahya’s point is that there is both a lower and upper “people “(“your [Moses’] people” vs. “My [God’s] people” that have “gone bad.” and likewise Jeroboam was called a mashhit – “destroyer” – because he destroyed and cut short the shoots.¹⁰See note 8 above. R. Bahya alludes to the midrash in b. Berakhot 35b: “‘He is a companion to vandals (ish mashhit) (Prov. 28:24).’ This refers to Jeroboam the son of Nebat who ruined (she-hishhit) Israel for their Father in Heaven,” by building two golden calves and ordering the Israelites to worship them (I Kings 12:28-32).

Elul is written 'full,' meaning that the vav is added because this is how it appears in the Book of Nechemia chapter 6 and in the Mishnah at the beginning of tractate Rosh Hashanah. In the ninth chapter of Bechorot Tishre is written with one yud at the end of it and not more, and it is also written so in the Mishnah there. Marcheshvan is written with one vav as it is found in the Mishnah, and in the first chapter of the gemara Ta'anit as well as elsewhere. If one writes is simply as Cheshvan this is legitimate because that is what people call the month and that is how it is printed in calendars and people will not be led astray. It appears to me that if Cheshvan is written with two vavs it is also a legitimate spelling because the extra letter does not change the pronunciation and will not lead people astray. One must write Marcheshvan as a single word and if it is written as two words - Mar Cheshvan - I am in doubt that it is legitimate. Even if one says that this is acceptable, I am still in doubt in a case when Mar is written at the end of one line and Cheshvan at the beginning of the next. It appears to me that Mar is its own word meaning, as some people explain, that the rains fall in this month and Mar refers to raindrops as it is written "The nations are but a drop in a bucket..." (Isaiah 40:15) One could also say that in the Jerusalem Talmud (chapter 1, halacha 2) and in midrash Bereshit 48 it teaches that the names of the months were brought by the returnees from the Babylonian exile. Therefore one could say that they made this month a remembrance for the beginning of the sins which led to exile that itself began with the ten northern tribes and only afterward continued withe Judah and Benjamin. The 'chief sinner' was Yerovam ben Nevat who switched the seventh and eight months of the calendar, as it says in the Book of Kings (I Kings 12:32-33). Mar in Aramaic means 'switch,' which would make Marcheshvan a reference to switching Cheshvan and Tishre, the seventh and eight months. There is also a hint here thaht this change cause bitterness (marirut) to all of Israel. Despite all this, in truth we do not expound the meaning of the names of the month in a definitive fashion and therefore if Marcheshvan is written as two words or on two line this is a doubtful case despite the fact that I am inclined to permit it. If, Gd forbid, this doubt should lead to the inability to grant a divorce then perhaps one should be lenient.

All (types of) work (for whose transgression) a person is guilty on the Sabbath is also guilty on Yom Kippur. And all types of work for whose transgression on the Sabbath a person is free from punishment but are still prohibited, are also prohibited on Yom Kippur in a like manner except that on the Sabbath a conscious sin is punishable by stoning,⁷⁹Stoning, sekilah, סקילה, is a Biblical form of capital punishment which was the standard penalty for crime in all ancient civilizations. In the Torah there are two explicit methods of executing a criminal or a sinner; stoning and burning. According to the Talmud, the Torah has four methods of execution: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling, (See B. Sanhedrin 49b., ff).
Stoning was an instinctive violent expression of popular wrath, (Exodus 17:4, 8:22; Numbers 14:10; I Samuel 30:6; I Kings 12:18; II Chronicles 10:18) and often in the Bible it is the prescribed mode of execution (Leviticus 20:2, 27, 24:16; Numbers 15:35; Deuteronomy 13:11, 17:5, 21:21, 22:21, et al). Originally, the whole community participated in the stoning and were required to throw stones at the guilty person. Stonings were probably the standard form of judicial execution in Biblical times, (Leviticus 24:23; Numbers 15:36; I Kings 21:13; II Chronicles 24:21).
The Mishna (Sanh.6:4) states that a "stoning place" was established where instead of a person being pelted by stones, the convicted person would be pushed down from a high place to his death provided it was not too high so as to mutilate the body which was a concern of the rabbis. It also was not to be too low so the death would be instantaneous. The reason for the stoning place was that the scriptural rule states "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death," (Deuteronomy 17:7) and then afterwards the "hand of all the people (should be on him)", (Deuteronomy 17:7). To insure that the witnesses put him to death they were the ones to push him and thereby be first to put him to death. Thus this method of "stoning" became acceptable as opposed to the actual throwing of stones. This also seemed the more "humane" way of carrying out capital punishment as the convicted person died more quickly and the danger of mutilation was reduced. In Maimonides' comment to Sanhedrin 6:4 he stated that it really made no difference if stones were thrown at one or if one were thrown at stones.
cf., Haim Hermann Cohn, v. 5, pp. 142-43. but on Yom Kippur it is punishable by karet.⁸⁰Karet, כרת; see footnote 78. Everything that is forbidden to be moved (or handled) on the Sabbath is also forbidden to be moved (or handled) on Yom Kippur, (but it is permitted to clean vegetables and to open (shell) nuts from the Minḥah time⁸¹Minḥah, מנחה, a time designating afternoon, meaning after the six and one half hour or after 12:30 P.M. according to our present day time system. (See footnote 40 for a more complete explanation). onward when (Yom Kippur) falls on a weekday, but nowadays (presently) it is customary to forbid that.)
Hagah: If a fire occurs on Yom Kippur, it is permitted to save one meal for the need of the night (following Yom Kippur) as one (may) save on the Sabbath the afternoon meal,⁸²The afternoon meal on the Sabbath is also referred to as Se'udah Shelishit, the third meal which is eaten on the Sabbath between the Minḥah, Afternoon Service (see footnote 40) and the Ma'ariv, Evening Service (see footnote 144). (ר״ן פרק כל כתבי),⁸³Rabbenu Nissim on the chapter Kol Khit-vey, כתבי ר״ן פרק כל, which is a commentary on the talmudic tractate Shabbat.
For Rabbenu Nissim, ר״ן; see footnote 47. and it is already explained in section 334⁸⁴See in the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, chapter 334 which contains twenty-seven paragraphs on the laws that apply when a fire breaks out on the Sabbath. These same laws apply regarding a fire, according to Isserles to Yom Kippur. (as to) how to act at this time when a fire (occurs) on the Sabbath and the same law (applies) for Yom Kippur. It is customary that the children play with nuts (אגודה ומהרי״ל).⁸⁵Agudah and Maharil, אגודה ומהרי״ל.
The Agudah, אגודה, is a collection of halakhic decisions derived from talmudic discussions and arranged in the order of the talmudic tractates. It was written by Alexander Suslin ha-Kohen of Frankfort who died in 1349. The Agudah was published in Cracow in 1571 and it also included novellae of his own as well as those of his predecessors, and a commentary and collection of halakhot to the minor tractates and to the Mishnayot of the orders Zera'in and Tohorot. The language of the Agudah is very concise and it is evident that it was written quickly under the threat of the persecutions of the time since Suslin died a martyr's death in Erfurt. Suslin was the last of the early German halakhic authorities. This German talmudic scholar was born Erfurt where he taught, as well as in Worms, Cologne, and Frankfort.
The Agudah, Suslin's most famous work, gives halakhic rulings in concise form and it ignores differences of opinion. He used as sources Mordecai b. Hillel and Asher b. Jehiel. It is often necessary to consult the work of these two scholars to understand fully the Agudah. Jacob Weil (see footnote 27) wrote a digest to the work called Ḥiddushei Agudah which was published in Venice in 1523 and accompanies the Agudah. Later halakhic authorities such as Jacob ha-Levi Moellin (see footnote 8) and Moses Isserles considered his decisions authoritative and they quoted from him. Isserles mentioned the Agudah often in his glosses to the Shulḥan Arukh.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 2, p. 585.
Maharil, מהרי״ל; see footnote 8. One should not object to them (the children) even before the Afternoon Prayer⁸⁶Minḥah, מנחה; see footnote 40., and the custom is widespread with respect to the mentioned law of breaking nuts, (ד״ע).⁸⁷Da'at Aẓmo, ד״ע, Isserles' own opinion; see footnote 38.