ሴፈር ዝማኒም (ጊዜያት) — ራምባም

ሴፈር ዝማኒም (ጊዜያት)

ሴፈር ዝማኒም (ጊዜያት) — ራምባም በBeth HaMidrash ላይ፦ የዕብራይስጥ ጽሑፍና የአማርኛ ትርጉሙ፣ ከራሺና ከታላላቆቹ ተንታኞች ጋር። ነጻ፣ በመስመር ላይ።

שְׁבִיתָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי מִמְּלָאכָה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לד כא) "וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת". וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְעָבַר עַל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ה יד) "לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה". וּמַה הוּא חַיָּב עַל עֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה. אִם עָשָׂה בִּרְצוֹנוֹ בְּזָדוֹן חַיָּב כָּרֵת. וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה נִסְקָל. וְאִם עָשָׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה חַיָּב קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה:Resting from labor 6a, the Rashba states that the mitzvah is negative in nature: one refrains from performing prohibited labors. In contrast, in his commentary on Leviticus 23:24, the Ramban explains that the mitzvah possesses a positive dimension: to spend the day in a restful frame of mind, abstaining from all activities - even those that are not forbidden labors - which would disrupt this tranquility.From the Rambam's choice of wording in this halachah, it would appear that he follows the first view. From his statements in Chapter 21, Halachah 1, however, it would appear that he accepts the second perspective. (See also Tzafenat Paneach.) on the seventh day fulfills a positive commandment, (Positive Commandment 154) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 85) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Exodus 23:12] states, "And you shall rest on the seventh day." (General Principle 9), the Rambam mentions that the commandment to rest on the Sabbath is mentioned 12 times in the Torah. Sefer HaKovetz and others question why the Rambam cites this proof-text in particular. Anyone who performs a labor on this day negates the observance of a positive commandment and also transgresses a negative commandment, for [ibid. 20:10] states, "Do not perform any labor [on (Negative Commandment 320) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 32) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. it]."What are the liabilities incurred by a person who performs labor [on this day]? If he does so willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, 3:1), the Sabbath laws, and the laws of Yom Kippur (Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 1:1). With regard to all other transgressions punishable by כרת, the Rambam merely states "as a conscious act of defiance."The Radbaz explains that it is possible that the Rambam mentioned the concept of "willingly" with regard to these three transgressions because they are the first cases of כרת mentioned in the Mishneh Torah. After mentioning the concept on these three occasions, he does not think further repetition is necessary. he is liable for karet; 28a relates that a person liable for כרת would die prematurely, before reaching the age of fifty. The Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1) emphasizes that being "cut off in this world" is not the sum total of Divine retribution for such a transgression. In addition, the person's soul is also cut off and prevented from reaching the world to come. if witnesses who administer a warning are present, 12:1-2, punishment is not administered for the violation of a transgression unless the transgressor is made aware of the punishment he could receive for his deed. he should be stoned [to death]. If he performs [labor] without being conscious of the transgression, he is liable to bring a sin offering of a fixed nature. 1:4.

כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּהִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר זֶה חַיָּב הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב כָּרֵת. וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה חַיָּב סְקִילָה. וְאִם הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג חַיָּב חַטָּאת:Whenever the expression, "one who performs this is liable" is used within the context of the Sabbath laws, the intent is that he is liable for karet, and if witnesses are present and administer a warning, he is liable to be stoned to death. If he performs such an activity without being aware of the transgression, he is liable for a sin offering.

וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר זֶה פָּטוּר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִן הַכָּרֵת וּמִן הַסְּקִילָה וּמִן הַקָּרְבָּן אֲבָל אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר בְּשַׁבָּת וְאִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְהוּא הַרְחָקָה מִן הַמְּלָאכָה. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בְּזָדוֹן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכֵן כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֵין עוֹשִׂין כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר בְּזָדוֹן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:Whenever the expression, "one who performs this is not liable" is used, the intent is that he is not liable for karet, for [execution by] stoning, or for bringing a [sin] offering. It is, however, forbidden to perform this act on the Sabbath. 3a makes a similar statement of principle, but states that there are three exceptions to this rule. When discussing these exceptions, the Rambam deviates from the terminology used in the Talmud and states that these three acts are "permitted."In such an instance, the prohibition is Rabbinic to Hilchot Ishut 2:1) who cite the Rambam's statements in Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2) and explain that this expression can refer to a prohibition of the Torah which is derived through the accepted traditions of Biblical exegesis. In this instance, however, the Rambam's intent is clear; the term refers to prohibitions that the Rabbis instituted on their own initiative as safeguards. in origin and was instituted as a safeguard against [the performance of] labor. A person who performs such an act is given "stripes for defiance." 18:6, explaining that the person is flogged to the extent of the court's discretion (in contrast to the number of lashes received for the violation of a Torah command, which is fixed at 39). Other authorities offer different interpretations.Similarly, whenever the expressions "this should not be performed..." or "it is forbidden to do this on the Sabbath" are used, a person who performs such an act as a conscious act of rebellion states that this expression implies that a person must be given a warning before such a punishment is administered. is given "stripes for defiance."

וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְכֵן כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּלוּם אוֹ פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם אֵין מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ כְּלָל:Whenever the expression, "it is permissible to do this" is used, the intent is that, at the outset, one may perform this act. Similarly, whenever the expressions, "one is under no obligation" or "one is not liable at all" are used, one does not receive any punishment at all [for performing such an act.]).

דְּבָרִים הַמֻּתָּרִים לַעֲשׂוֹתָן בְּשַׁבָּת וּבִשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּתָן אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה בִּגְלָלָן מְלָאכָה וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא תֵּעָשֶׂה. אִם לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְאוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד. גּוֹרֵר אָדָם מִטָּה וְכִסֵּא וְסַפְסָל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לַחְפֹּר חָרִיץ בַּקַּרְקַע בִּשְׁעַת גְּרִירָתָן. וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם חָפְרוּ הַקַּרְקַע אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ בְּכָךְ לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן. וְכֵן מְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם עַל גַּבֵּי עֲשָׂבִים בְּשַׁבָּת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לַעֲקֹר אוֹתָן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶעֶקְרוּ אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְרוֹחֵץ יָדָיו בַּעֲפַר הַפֵּרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַשִּׁיר הַשֵּׂעָר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָשַׁר אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְכֵן פִּרְצָה דְּחוּקָה מֻתָּר לְהִכָּנֵס בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר צְרוֹרוֹת. וְכֵן כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּן כְּגוֹן זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:It is permissible to perform an act that is permitted on the Sabbath, despite the fact that it is possible - but it is not an absolute certainty - that, [as a result of one's actions], a forbidden labor 9), explains that by using the term "forbidden labor" in this and the following halachah, the Rambam implies that there is a difficulty only if a prohibition from the Torah is involved. If merely a Rabbinic prohibition is concerned, it is permitted without question. This question is also discussed by the Mishneh L'Melech. will be performed, provided one does not have the intent to perform that labor. 23b and other sources.) Rabbi Shimon maintains that although a forbidden labor results from a person's activity, since he did not desire that this labor be performed, he is not held liable. Rabbi Yehudah, in contrast, holds the person liable, for his actions brought about the performance of a forbidden labor.The commentaries explain Rabbi Shimon's opinion based on the principle (Chaggigah 10b) that "The Torah prohibited purposeful labor [on the Sabbath]." A deed is forbidden only when it is associated with a purposeful intent. (See also the notes on Halachah 7.)The concept discussed in this halachah, אינו מתכוין, differs from an ordinary example of a labor performed unintentionally. When we speak of a labor performed unintentionally (בשוגג), the person had no thought whatsoever of performing a forbidden activity. In the case of אינו מתכוין, by contrast, the person performs an act consciously with the knowledge that there is a possibility that it may lead to a forbidden act. Nevertheless, since there is no certainty that the transgression will be committed, he is not held liable.Although this principle is applicable to the Sabbath laws in particular, the difference of opinion between these two sages on this issue is relevant, not only to the Sabbath laws, but to all other prohibitions in the Torah as well.Based on Pesachim 25b-26b, it appears that one is allowed to perform an activity that may result in the incidental performance of a forbidden labor even when one has an alternative manner of accomplishing one's objective, which does not involve any risk of a forbidden labor being performed. See Hilchot Kilayim 10:16.What is implied? A person may drag a bed, a chair, a bench, which quotes the text of Shabbat 22b. The original manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah substitute מגדל, "cabinet," instead of ספסל, "bench." and the like [on the ground] on the Sabbath, provided he does not intend to gouge out a groove in the earth while dragging them. Therefore, even if he did gouge out [a groove] in the ground [while dragging them], it is of no consequence, for he did not have this intent in mind.Similarly, a person may tread on grass on the Sabbath, as long as his intent is not to uproot it. Thus, should it be uprooted, that is of no consequence. Also, a person may rub powdered herbs and the like over his hands, provided he does not intend to remove his hair. Therefore, if the hair is removed, it is of no consequence. Based on the same rationale, one may enter a narrow opening on the Sabbath even though, [while doing so,] one causes pieces of the wall to fall. Similarly, it is permissible to perform any act with similar repercussions, provided that one does not have the intent of doing so.

Mishneh Torah, Sabbath.1