Arukh HaShulchan

Sefaria · Halakhah · 221 sections

Orach Chaim.1.11
One of the foundations of the Jewish religion, is to believe that our holy Torah as it is (in its entirety), was given to us on Mount Sinai, through Moses, and if a single letter were to be omitted, it would become invalid, and there is no difference in sanctity between the verse: “hear O Israel” and the verse: “and Timna was a concubine”,
Orach Chaim.2.3
And these are the words of the Rambam there Law 9: "The clothing of a Talmid Chacham is nice and clean, and it is forbidden that a stain or oil, etc. should be found in his clothes. And he shouldn't wear purple clothing — since everyone would look upon the clothing — neither should he wear clothing of poverty — since it disgraces the wearer — rather he should wear nice clothes that are in-between these two extremes. And his skin shouldn't be seen beneath his clothing, like the clothing made out of light flax that is made in Egypt. And his clothing shouldn't hang on the ground, like that of someone low-spirited. Rather, the clothing should reach until his ankles, and his sleeves up until the tips of his fingers... And he shouldn't go out to the market perfumed, or his clothes perfumed, nor should he put perfume in his hair. But if he anointed himself with perfume in order to remove a stinky smell — it is permitted. Also, he should not go out alone at night, unless he had a fixed time to go out to his studies. And all this is to fend against suspicion." (See Brachot 43b, and in Chullin 91a, that explains that "all this" is to fend against demons. Requires further investigation.)
Orach Chaim.2.4
He also writes there in Law 7: "A Talmid Chacham shouldn't shout when he is talking; he shouldn't raise his voice, but rather speak softly with all the creations (i.e. humans). And when he speaks softly, he should not speak from too far a distance lest he sound haughty. Also, he should precede his friend in greeting. And judge every person with the benefit of the doubt. He should mention his friend's praises and never his friends faults. 'Love peace and chase peace.' (Avot 1:12). If he sees that his words will be helpful and heard — he should speak. Otherwise — he should keep silent... And he should not speak except with wisdom and kindness etc. And he should not converse with a woman in the market, even if she is his wife or his sister or his daughter." And all the more so he should not become accustomed to swears and oaths. Also, he shouldn't eat his meals in a lot of places. And he should distance himself from settlements of fools and from people who are not respectable.
Orach Chaim.2.5
We say at the end of Masechet Horayot: there are five things that cause one to forget their learning: Eating from what a mouse or cat has eaten from; and eating an animal's heart; and regularly eating olives; and drinking the excess water from washing; and washing his legs one atop the other. And there are those who say: even one that lays his vessels — that is to say, his clothing — beneath his head. And five things that cause one to remember their learning: Eating toasted bread, and all the more so the burnt parts themselves; and eating a soft roasted egg without salt (see Rashi on Shabbat 38b, "בשביל"); and one who is accustomed to olive oil; and accustoming oneself with wine and spices; and drinking excess water from dough. And there are some who say: even one who dips his finger in salt and then eats.
Orach Chaim.2.6
It is also found there: There are ten things that are hard for learning (to understand what one is learning): passing beneath the straps of a camel, and all the more so beneath the camel itself; and passing between two camels; and passing between two women; and a woman passing between two men; and passing beneath the bad stench of a corpse; and passing beneath the bridge that water hasn't passed beneath it for forty days; and eating bread that isn't cooked all the way; and eating meat from the spoon that is used to stir the pot; and drinking from the pool that passes through a cemetery; and looking in the face of the dead. And there are some who say: even reading the writing that is on the gravestone, see there. And there are those that have written that wearing two garments together is also hard for forgetting (causes one to forget) (Magen Avraham in the name of Kavanot). Regarding shoes, however, we are not strict.
Orach Chaim.2.7
Our rabbis, the writers of the Shulchan Aruch Paragraph 4 wrote: "One should put on their right shoe first and shouldn't tie it, then put on the left shoe and tie it, and then should return to the right shoe and tie it. And our shoes that have no tie — one should put on the right shoe first. And when one is removing their shoes — they should remove their left foot first." Until here is their language. And also with socks, when putting on, right first, and when taking off, left first (Shulchan Aruch, the Garshaz). And there are those that argue on this (Artzot Ha'Chayim), but we don't follow that opinion. And also in their tying, as we tie our socks on the leg, that are called "paduskas" — so too, here: one should put on his right sock first but not ties it, then put on the left sock and tie it and then tie the right one. And thus we practice, and one shouldn't stray from the words of our Rabbis the writers of the Shulchan Aruch. And also the Tur ruled like this, see there.
Orach Chaim.2.8
As an explanation of the matter: since in every place the Torah gives honor to the right, for instance in the service of the Temple, that only the right is valid for the service. And it is so in the sprinkling on the thumb and the big toe in Parashat "Metzora" it is written: "The right [hand/foot]." Also it is so that in all the doings of people — the right is preferred. Therefore, one should dress the right side first. Also therefore, in undressing one should remove the garment on the left first, so that the right will be dressed for longer, since respect of a limb is when it is covered and dressed. Yet, regarding the tying of Tefillin we find that the Torah gave respect to the left, since the Tefillin is tied on the left arm. And thus, everything regarding tying — we give priority to the left. And everything regarding putting on garments — we give priority to the right, and this is according to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And so it is found in Gemara Shabbat (61a) that Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak said that Mar the son of Revana did so. Yet all of our Rabbis the Rishonim — the Rif, and the Rambam, and the Rosh, and the Mordechai, and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (SM"G) — left this idea out completely and didn't mention it at all. And the reason is clear, since after what it says there (ibid): "Rav Ashi says, we see that Rav Kahana was not strict on this matter." See there, and Rav Ashi is a later Amora [and we always follow the later opinions]. (And in the Artzot Ha'Chayim he writes that Mar the son of Revina is the same generation as Rav Ashi, see there. But this is not the case, since here it is Mar the son of "RAVNA", and not "REVINA". And about him Rav Ashi says in Yevamot (22a): "Isn't Mar the son of Ravna signed on it?" [Mar the son of Ravna] was an earlier Amora.. And anyway this idea is mentioned in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, since Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak said: "Someone who is God-fearing should go out...", and it is upon us to uphold the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.)
Orach Chaim.2.9
"A person is forbidden to walk four Amot standing upright, as it is written: 'The whole land is filled with [God's] glory'" (Kidushin 31a). "And anyone that walks standing upright — it is as if he is pushing the legs of the Omnipresence" (Brachot 43b). And the Gemara's intention is not that one should walk hunched over, but rather that one shouldn't walk too straight with his neck outstretched like people with too much pride. And these are the words of the Rambam in the fifth chapter from Hilchot Da'ot, Law 8: "A Talmid Chacham should not walk straight and with an outstrectched neck, like it is written, 'And they went with their throats outstretched.' Also, one should not walk with his heel to his big toe, like women and haughty people, as it is written: 'The women would go with their feet close together'. And one shouldn't run in public areas like the crazies, and shouldn't stoop over like people who suffer from a hunched back, but rather look down, like one who is standing in prayer. And one who is walking in the market should look like he is busy with his business. Also from the stride of a person can it be recognized whether he is wise and full of knowledge or if he is dim-witted. And so said Shlomo in his wisdom: "And also in the way that a fool walks his heart is empty, and he is telling everyone that he is a fool.'"
Orach Chaim.2.10
It is written in Kiddushin there (31a): "Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshuah would not walk four Amot with an exposed head. He would say, 'The Omnipresence is above my head.'" And he himself said in Masechet Shabbat (118b): "Good will come to me, since I did not go four Amot with an exposed head." And there (156b) it is written: "Cover your head, so that there will be upon you awe of Heaven." And it is brought there a case in which exposing of the head brings a person to sin. And it is brought in Masechet Kallah: "One time elders were sitting in the gate and two children passed before them, one with a covered head, one with an exposed head. They investigated after the one that had his head exposed and it was found that he is a Mamzer, the son of a women who had been in Niddah, see there. And the idea is that the head, that inside it is the brain, which is the source of wisdom and awe — it is not fitting to be exposed before the Blessed One, that the whole land is filled with [God's] glory, just as one shouldn't stand in a holy place with a exposed head. And if he doesn't cover his head, his inclination overpowers him without any feeling. And we have from the Great Rabbis that explain that at its essence there is a prohibition against having an exposed head, and there are some that explain that it is only a Middah of Chasidut, the right thing to do, but not neccesarily required. However, if you look you will find that it is the common practice. (But in a forced position, such as in the courts of the emperor may his name be glorified, where by the law of the land one may not walk with his head covered — he is permitted to leave his head uncovered. But in a non-forced position, whoever wants to merit awe of Hashem should make sure he does this. Enough said for an understanding person. And if you investigate, you will see that it is simple.)
Orach Chaim.2.11
Also, he should check if he has to go to the bathroom before prayer, as Rabbi [Yochanan] says (Brachot 15a): "One who wants to take upon himself the yoke of heaven fully — he should go to the bathroom and wash his hands, and he should put on Tefillin, and he should say Sh'ma, and he should pray [the Shemoneh Esreh]." And a person should become accustomed to go to the bathroom in the morning and in the evening, it is being careful and clean. And one only has to check himself. But if he checked and nothing comes out, even if he imagines that he needs to go to the bathroom — he is considered a "clean body" anyway, and is required to pray. And if, God forbid, the time for saying Sh'ma passes because of this [having to go to the bathroom] — the Torah wasn't given to angels, it was given to humans — what can he do? Many people make a mistake about this, thus one should warn them. And he shouldn't walk around with parts of his body naked. And he shouldn't walk around barefoot, since there is nothing more offensive than someone that walks around barefoot.
Orach Chaim.3.1
It is written, "His angels will be commanded to you, to watch over you on all of your travels". On Shabbos (Meseches (Tractate) Shabbos) 119b we say,"two angles escort a person". In Chagigah 16a, it comes to say, " the two angels that escort this person testify on his behalf". Therefore, the Sages commanded (Brachos 60b) that when one needs to enter the bathhouse, he should say before he enters "be honored, respected and holy ones, the rulers of above! Watch over me! Watch over me! Help me! Help me! Wait for me until I enter and come out, since this is the way of man!". Its explanation: This person is mentioning that the angels are too holy to enter into the bathhouse and therefore, they should wait for him to exit from there. He is asking them to protect him from demons. This is the true meaning of that which is written, "His angels will be commanded to you, to watch over you on all of your travels". Meaning, wherever one is forced to go, even into a place where the angles cannot enter. The mentioned safeguarding is from demons as was written in prior times, "You shall not fear the fright of night...destruction that ravages at noon" (Tehillim 91). This that one says, "Help me!" is in regard to cleanliness since at the exit of the uncleanliness (excrement) is something that dependent upon all beings; therefore, one says,"this is the way of man!", meaning, "what shall be done if someone is forced to do this?".
Orach Chaim.3.2
Now, we no longer have the tradition to say this ("be honored..."). This was the tradition of the first and pious whose thoughts were always devoted to G-d. About them it is said, "He who dwells in the covert of the Most High will lodge in the shadow of the Almighty" (Psalms 91:1). They felt the holiness of those who escorted them (the angels) and therefore, it was pleasant for them to say so ("be honored..."). We (in modern times), also have the escort of angles, like the sages of blessed memory have explained (and as we have explained above); however, we can not feel their holiness at all. Our saying this is considered arrogant and egotistical and it appears as arrogance as well. Certainly a holy man who is involved with Torah in holiness needs to say this, but not us, only regular people. This is the essence and this is the practice. (The "Artzot HaChaim" questions this, but the way I have written this is correct. Refer and you find it easily).
Orach Chaim.3.3
One should act modestly in the bathroom, and one is not called "modest" unless he is modest in the bathroom (Berachot 62a). That is to say, that he acts modestly in the bathroom, all the more so in other places. This is what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Deot (Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 5, 6): Torah Scholars conduct themselves with great modesty: they don't disgrace themselves, and do not reveal their head or body. Even when they go to the washroom they should be modest, they shouldn't remove their clothes until seated, they shouldn't wipe with their right hand. And he should distance himself from everyone, and enter a room within a room, a cave within a cave, and only then defecate. And if he defecates behind a wall, he should distance himself so that he doesn't hear another if he is making sounds. And if he defecates in a valley, he should distance himself so that nobody sees his nakedness. And he should not speak while he is defecating, even for a great need. And just like he is modest in the washroom during the day, so too should he be at night. And one should always defecate in the morning and the night only, to avoid the need of distancing himself (from others). Until here is his writing, and he omitted some laws that he will outline. And I do not know his reasoning.
Orach Chaim.3.4
He should shut the door behind him, and two people should not go inside the washroom together. And regarding women they said in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 19a): they enacted that women should converse in the bathroom, see there. And this is regarding washrooms in the fields and not in the city. Therefore, nowadays, women, too, should not enter together (Magen Avraham).
Orach Chaim.5.2
And in all blessings we speak to Him may He be Blessed, in the second person- Blessed are You. And in expressions of thanks and praises there occurs the frequent term "You-He" including both second and third persons (Heb.- these are called "present"- 2nd person, and "hidden"- 3rd person.) And the concept is can be understood thusly: G-d's essential being is hidden beyond all that is hidden, and even the different kinds of angels do not know it. It is only through His actions that He is known to us and to the angels ... this is why we say "You-He," meaning, You on the side of Your actions, He, on the side of His Essence. Therefore in our prayers, when we are asking that God should do x and y, we are speaking on the level of actions, hence we say "You." And so too with all kinds of blessings... this is why we say "You" in the form of presence (2nd person).
Orach Chaim.6.1
The blessing of "who creates" is unique among the blessings. For all of the other blessings are short and explicit, like the blessing of the enjoyers; when one eats bread one says "Who draws out bread . . ." and so the rest, and similarly the morning blessings. But this blessing is long, and its subject is not even mentioned. And in my humble opinion the truth of it is that the Sages did not find a place in this blessing to mention the discharge of the orifices. One: Because it is not a polite matter. Also: It is impossible to compare this to the blessing of the enjoyers, even though a person enjoys his healthy discharges, because all blessings of the enjoyers are said before the act. And also: All the blessings of the enjoyers refer to optional enjoyments, but this act is mandatory. And if this blessing be compared to the universal practice of morning blessings, are those not but once a day. And therefore the Sages of blessed memory decreed of man's creation, for it is obvious about private hygiene that it should not be explicit. And this is the reason of the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh, who explained the reason of this blessing, which is not their usual approach, as they are not commentators, but because it is relevant to the matter. (And similarly the Rosh and the Ran at the start of Ketubot on wedding blessings. And it seems to me further that this is the reason of RMA on part 5, who required us to bless "who created" in the morning even if that does not correspond to the necessaries, see there. And many are shocked by him, but according to what I have written that this is about the creation of man -- it comes out good. And investigate, for you will find it easy.)
Orach Chaim.7.1
Our teachers, the compilers of the Shulchan Aruch wrote as follows: “throughout the day, when one uses the restroom, whether for number one or number two, he is to recite the blessing of “Asher Yatzar” alone, without reciting the blessing upon washing hands, even if his hands got dirty, and he wishes to study or pray right away”. Now what they are implying are two things - A. The blessing of “Asher Yatzar” is not to be recited only once a day, in the morning, like the rest of the morning blessings, even though there is no mention of relieving oneself in the blessing - but rather every time one uses the restroom, the blessing must be recited. This also comes to rule out the opinion of one of the early commentators, who is of the opinion that one is not required to recite the blessing after number one.
Orach Chaim.7.2
And the second thing: the Ra’ava”d is of the opinion that one must also recite the blessing for washing hands after using the restroom, being that he needs to now recite the blessing one makes after relieving himself, and it is forbidden to recite any blessingwithout first washing one’s hands - he must therefore recite the blessing one makes upon the required hand-washing, and there are some who hold that one must recite the blessing for washing hands only after number two. But there are many who disagree with this ruling - therefore the author of the Shulchan Aruch comes to teach us that one is never required to recite the blessing for washing hands, which is unlike the opinion of the Ro”sh, who holds that one must recite the blessing for washing hands, if one used the restroom before praying the afternoon prayer. Also, the Shulchan Aruch adds that one is not to recite the blessing for washing hands even if they became dirty, just as one does not recite that blessing even after washing one’s hands when dirty before the afternoon prayers, although he is required to wash his hands in that situation, being that the blessing for washing hands was established to be recited only once a day, in the morning. (And in the book “Artzot Hachaim” he writes at length that there are many who hold that one should recite the blessing for washing hands after using the restroom before the afternoon prayer. Now if a scholar wishes to do so, he may, however one should not instruct others to do so. Also, the Pri Megadim expresses uncertainty regarding a situation where there is an additional reason to be in doubt as to whether one must recite the blessing for washing hands - for example he wishes to eat a food dipped in a liquid. However in truth, there is nothing to ponder, and one would definitely not need to recite the blessing for washing hands...
Orach Chaim.7.3
It was already mentioned, that after using the restroom, one is to wash his hands and recite “Asher Yatzar”. Nevertheless, if one’s hands did not get dirty, he is not obligated to wash his hands, and if only one hand got dirty, he is only required to wash that hand. Nevertheless, the common practice is to wash hands regardless, as the Beit Yosef writes, that there is no reason to wash hands in such a case, aside from the fact that one is expected to follow the rules of cleanliness, as well as the proper conduct one is expected to do as preparation before showing honor to G-d - even though one is generally only required required to prepare himself before prayer -and not just any blessing, nevertheless, that rule applies to preparing oneself in general - such as wearing a belt etc., however when it comes to something disgusting, (such as using the restroom) one is expected to wash his hands even for the purpose of reciting a blessing. Now it happens to be that there are those who hold that one is required to wash his hands three times, and there are those who follow this ruling, however the Beit Yosef did not rule as such.
Orach Chaim.7.4
The Beit Yosef writes, that if one finished relieving himself, and then [before he got a chance to recite Asher Yatzar], he needed to relieve himself a second time - he must, in that case, recite the blessing twice. Now this is unlike a situation where one decided to stop eating, and then changed his mind, and decided to continue eating, which in such a case he would be required to recite a blessing once, being that unlike the case of relieving oneself, one can always decide to continue and eat more, however in the case of one who relieved himself a second time before he got a chance to recite a blessing after the first time, that case would be more similar to one who missed a prayer, which in that case he would need to recite a second prayer after the next time he prays. However there are many great scholars who do not accept this ruling, and that is the common practice. And furthermore, if one did not get a chance to recite the blessing after relieving oneself before he felt an urge to relieve himself again, he should not recite the blessing until he relieves himself for the second time.
Orach Chaim.7.5
There is no set measurement of relieving oneself that is required in order for one to recite the blessing. If one is unsure as to whether he already recited the blessing or not, he should not recite it, because when in doubt, one does not recite a blessing. Now if one relieved himself twice, and he is unsure as to whether he recited the blessing, there may be reason to say that he should then recite the blessing, being that the Halacha may be like the Beit Yosef, who holds that he would need to recite a second blessing regardless, being that he relieved himself twice, however there are those who hold that one should not recite the blessing even in such a case. If one ate something which requires him to recite an after-blessing, and then he went to the restroom, he should first recite the blessing of “Asher Yatzar”, and only afterwards should he recite the blessing after food, being that the blessing of “Asher Yatzar” is generally recited more frequently than the after m-blessing for food.
Orach Chaim.25.1
Our Rabbi the Beit Yosef wrote: "After one dons the Tallit — he should place the Tefillin, since we [only] go up in holiness." And people have questioned upon this ruling: "It should the opposite since Tefillin are more holy, and we have established that anything that is holier than something else takes priority over that something else, and if so he should put on the Tefillin before the Tallit (Sha'agat Aryeh Chapter 28 and the Dagul Mervavah). But the words of our Rabbi the Beit Yosef are correct. That it is in Menachot (49b) that we conclude that commonality and holiness — are both equal in priority, and one can prioritize whichever he wants (between those two). And so the Rambam ruled at the end of Chapter 8 from Hilchot Tamidin, see there. And Tallit compared to Tefillin is more common, as it is worn also on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And so [the Beit Yosef] is saying: that since the two of them (Tallit and Tefillin) are equal in priority, thus from the side of "[Only] going up in holiness", that is to say, to elevate the body — therefore we put on the Tallit before the Tefillin. And so it is in the Zohar at the end of Parashat "Bamidbar" that the Tallit is donned before Tefillin, see there.
Orach Chaim.25.2
And in any case he wrote in paragraph 2: "One who is careful to wear a Tallit Kattan — he should wear it and [then] place the Tefillin in his house, and he should walk to synagogue dressed in Tzitzit and crowned with Tefillin, and there he should wrap himself in the Tallit Gadol." That is to say: that the Zohar tells to be careful to come to synagogue crowned with Tzitzit and Tefillin, and it is not proper to walk from his house to synagogue in the Tallit Gadol. And how should one do this, if one must precede Tzitzit to Tefillin as I have written? Because of this he says that since he has upon him the Tallit Kattan — he is permitted to don the Tefillin without the Tallit Gadol, and walk to synagogue and there he should place the Tallit Gadol and he will find that he has fulfilled everything. And our Rabbi the Rem"a wrote on this matter: "And everyone practiced to wrap themselves even in the Tallit Gadol before and to make the blessing upon it, and after [putting on the Tallit] he places the Tefillin and walks to synagogue." And he is not arguing with our Rabbi the Beit Yosef. Rather, in his time the Jews lived amongst themselves and they could walk also in the Tallit Gadol to synagogue. And thus they didn't need to fulfill the words of the Zohar regarding the Tzitzit Kattan, since it is not the main [Tallit], rather they would wear the Tallit Gadol [which is the main Tallit] and the Tefillin and would walk t0 synagogue. Yet in our time and in our great sins it is impossible for us to do this at all. And we place both the Tallit and the Tefillin in synagogue.
Orach Chaim.25.3
And since it was explained in paragraph 1 that one should put on the Tzitzit before the Tefillin, therefore one should caution those who put the Tefillin purse with the Tallit in one purse, as is our practice, that they don't place the Tefillin purse above and closer to the opening of the purse than the Tallit, in order so that he will not touch the Tefillin first and he will have to place them before the Tallit. Since we do not pass up on the performance of Mitzvot. And even though the Tefillin are still in their purse and the reason of "we do not pass up" wouldn't really apply (Magen Avraham), in any case since the reason for placing the Tallit before the Tefillin is itself not so clear, and how much more so according to what we explained that they are technically equal in priority, that the Tallit is common and the Tefillin are holy, thus any touching to the Tefillin — one should precede them. And even if among the Tefillin one touches the Shel Rosh first, we aren't worried because of the reason of "we do not pass up" as will be explained, it is different there since it is a decree from the text to precede the Shel Yad as will be explained, what is not so regarding the Tallit and Tefillin (Turei Zahav).
Orach Chaim.25.4
But with what is explained in paragraph 2, that they place the Tefillin in their house and the tallit in the synagogue, with this there is certainly no worry even if he touches the Tallit first. Anyway he doesn't need to wrap himself in the Tallit in his house because since he didn't have intention to wear it here, the ruling before (of "we don't pass up") doesn't apply, as in chapter 168 that one must precede the blessing of "Hamotzee" to a bread made from wheat to bread made from barley. But this is when he wants to eat from the bread made from wheat, but when he doesn't want to eat [the wheat bread] — this rule doesn't apply. And it is so here too (Magen Avraham). And know that all this is only when one has before himself the Tallit and the Tefillin prepared, that we have investigated which one to precede the other. But when the Tefillin are prepared before him but the Tallit is not prepared — he shouldn't wait for the Tallit. Rather, he should place the Tefillin, and when the Tallit is brought to him he should wrap himself in it.
Orach Chaim.25.5
It was already explained by the Zohar that it is a great thing to walk to synagogue wrapped in the Tallit and crowned in the Tefillin. And even if he has to go through disgusting alleyways — he is permitted to go there, as log as he covers the "Shel Rosh". And this idea is so great, that there were from the great [Rabbis] that ruled that one who was part of a group to go to synagogue before dawn for the saying of Tehillim in a group, and now wants to go back on it since he is unable to walk to synagogue in his Tallit and his Tefillin before dawn, he is permitted to go back on it and is exempt from penalty. And also the promise doesn't fall upon him since it is similar to accidental promises (Magen Avraham in the name of the Maharam from Lublin Chapter 37). And it was for this reason that the Arizal was never among the first ten at synagogue, since many came before dawn and he didn't want to go without the wrapping and crowning of the Tallit and the Tefillin (ibid.). But anyway, many great [Rabbis] argued on this, that before dawn since it is still not time for Tzitzit and Tefillin — we are not concerned [the walking to synagogue with Tallit and Tefillin doesn't apply]. And the warning of the Zohar [to walk to synagogue...] was not referring to this [before dawn] (Eliyah Rabbah and Nahar Shalom and Menachem Azaria). And anyway, annulment of his vow is certainly required (Magen Avraham ibid.) And the reason for the Arizal was not only for this reason, but also because he digestive problems, and thus had to go to the bathroom, and he wasn't able to come earlier. (Machatzit Ha'Shekel. And thus wrote the Magen Avraham on Paragraph 90, see there.)
Orach Chaim.25.6
And so was the Minhag of the Rosh Z"l: He would wrap himself in the Tallit and would order(say) the [morning] blessings [up] until "[God] crowns Israel with glory," and then he would place Tefillin. And he said this blessing since the Tefillin are called "glory", and it is nice to make that blessing immediately after the placing of Tefillin. So wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in his name. And it's not law, since in the Gemara the morning blessings were ordered about other things (Berachot 60b), and this blessing is about [not Tefillin, but rather about] putting on a hat, as I have written in Chapter 46. Rather since we are unable to order(say) the blessings, each one in its place [according to Berachot ibid.], we order(say) them together, either at home or in synagogue as will be explained there. Rather they taught us this because if a great man such as the Rosh Z"l did so, certainly whoever is able according to his body and way to do so — he should do so. But it is not law.
Orach Chaim.25.7
Every Jewish man is obligated to make sure that there will be the Tefillin upon him during Kriyat Shema and Prayer (Amidah/Shemoneh Esreh). And anyone who says Kriyat Shema without Tefillin — it is as if he has testified falsely against himself, and as if he has sacrificed a sacrifice without the libations (Berachot 14b). That is to say: that the false testimony is that he says "And you shall bind them [the Tefillin] as a sign upon your arm..." — and he didn't bind them! And also the Kriyat Shema that he said only counts as half a Mitzvah, like one who sacrifices a sacrifice without the libations. And until when the Tefillin should be upon him will be explained at the end of this chapter, that they should be upon him until after "Aleinu", see there.
Orach Chaim.25.8
And know that even according to the Halachic authorities that explain that performance of Mitzvot don't need intention, anyway one certainly must know the main idea of the commandment and its core. And with Tefillin if one does not place intention to its main idea at all — he did not fulfill the commandment, and it is as if he did an action of nonsense. And thus one should have intention in their placing that that Holy One Blessed be [God] commanded us to place these four sections, that have in them the Oneness of God's name and the Exodus from Egypt, on the arm opposite the heart and upon the head opposite the brain, in order so that we will remember the miracles and wonders that God did for us. Since they tell of God's Oneness, and that God has the power and dominion in the upper realms and the lower realms. And through this one will strengthen his faith in the Blessed One, and trust God in all his things. And he will serve the Holy One Blessed be [God] with the soul that is in the brain, and also the heart that is the center of desire and thought. And through this he will remember the Creator, and will lessen his [superfluous] pleasures, and will understand that he was created only for the purpose to do the will of the Blessed One. And he will send to God his wishes and all his needs. And know that from these four sections we were only commanded to read two of the sections: "Shema", and "Ve'Haya Im Shamoah". But "Kadesh", and "Ve'haya Ki Yaviacha" — we do not need to read. And so they learned out in Sifrei on the verse "Ve'Shinantem Le'vanecha (And you shall teach your children)": "Shema" "Ve'haya Im Shamoah" [that it mentions "And you shall teach..."] — shall be taught [i.e. read], but not "Kadesh" and "Ki Yaviacha" [that it is not mentioned "And you shall teach..."] shall not be taught [i.e. not need be read]. And you will find among the great [Rabbis] that wrote that one should say also the latter two sections (see Magen Avraham) — but this is not meant to be an obligation nor a commandment, but rather extra love [for God] as is the trait of the righteous. And they only came to teach that the intention [of that one need not read the latter sections] is not to say that it is forbidden but rather that one doesn't have the obligation to read them. And one who wishes to do so should read them too, and we do not protest.
Orach Chaim.25.9
One places the Shel Yad first, and after that the Shel Rosh. And even if one touches the Shel Rosh first — he is forced to pass on it, even though we don't pass up on the performance of Mitzvot, and he should take the Shel Yad and place it on his arm, and afterwards should take the Shel Rosh and place it on his head. And the reason is because it is written: "And they shall be a Totafot between your eyes", and we learn out (Menachot 36a) from the language of "they" since it is in the plural (Rashi), that all the time that it [the Shel Rosh] is "between your eyes" — there should be two [both the Shel Rosh and the Shel Yad]. And even though that if one doesn't have the Shel Yad, or he is unable to place the Shel Yad, he [still] places the Shel Rosh alone as I have written in Chapter 26 — this is because they are two Mitzvot, and of course he is obligated to fulfill whatever he can. But when he has both [and can place both] — it is a decree of the Torah to place the Shel Rosh after the Shel Yad, and thus we are not concerned with "we do not pass up on the performance of Mitzvot". And thus Our Rabbis of Blessed Memory said (Yoma 33a) that one should be careful to not touch the Shel Rosh first, so that he will not have to pass up on the performance of the Mitzvah.
Orach Chaim.25.10
And regarding blessings [on the Tefillin] there is a dispute among the Rabbis. There are those from our rabbis who ruled that one should make one single blessing upon both of them. And there are those who ruled that one should make two blessings: On the Shel Yad, "To place the Tefillin" and on the Shel Rosh, "About the Mitzvah of Tefillin". And the Ashkenazim follow that latter opinion, and the Sefardim mke one blessing, like the first opinion. And it is simple in the Gemara in Menachot (36a) that: If one didn't converse between the [placing of the] Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh — makes one blessing. [If he] conversed — makes two blessings. This implies that there is one blessing upon both, and so explains Rashi. However, it is simple in the Gemara of Berachot (60b) that says: When one places the Tefillin upon his arm, he should say, "Blessed...to place...", when he places [the Tefillin] upon his head he should say "Blessed...about the Mitzvah..." — it is clear that he needs two blessings[!] And so it is in the Yerushalmi, and in the Midrash Tanchuma at the end of Parashat "Bo", see there. And so ruled Rabbeinu Tam, and explained that [what is written] in Menachot, that "if he converses — he makes two blessings" on the Shel Rosh, alone. And Rashi would explain that the blessings [found in the Gemara Berachot 60b] are when he conversed. And the Rif and the Rambam and the Rashba ruled like Rashi. And the Rosh and the Tur ruled like Rabbeinu Tam. (And it is not clear according to Rabbeinu Tam regarding the "if he conversed — he makes two blessings" upon the Shel Rosh, yet how can one make two blessings upon one Mitzvah? And the Maharal from Prague was already awakened to this matter which was brought down in the Bach, and he wrote that one should move around the Shel Yad [when saying one of the two blessings had he conversed], and thus one of the blessings would be upon the Shel Yad [thus it would not be two blessings on one Mitzvah, but rather one on each Tefillin]. And according to this when he has only the Shel Rosh — he should only make one blessing, see there. But this is not implied from Tosfot and the Rosh, but it is implied from the Magen Avraham. And I have also found in the Or Zarua Gadol Chapter 582 in the name of the Geonim that technically each Tefillin would require two blessings: "to place" and "about the Mitzvah of", see there. And it seems to me that "to place" is the blessing upon the Mitzvah, and "about the Mitzvah of" is the blessing of gratitude that God merited us to make a sign between God and us. And this is related to the Shel Rosh, like they learned out (Menachot 35b) on the verse "they will all see...that the name of God is called upon you and they will be in awe of you" — this is [referring to] the Tefillin Shel Rosh. And according to this it is simple. And if you investigate you will find that it is simple.)
Orach Chaim.25.11
And our Rabbi the Rem"a wrote, "It is the general custom of Ashkenazi Jews to make two blessings. And it is good to always say after the second blessing 'May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever'." This is because of the doubt of perhaps a blessing (the second blessing) made in vain, as I have written in chapter 206 that when someone says the Name of Heaven in vain he should say "May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever", see there. And it is not clear at all either way: If the matter is not clear to us [if the second blessing might be a blessing in vain], that therefore we say "May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever", why would we make [the] second blessing? We should make one blessing, as is the law with all doubts about blessings (there is a rule, "if there is a doubt regarding blessings, one must be lenient", and thus if there is a doubt about whether one should make a blessing one should not make the blessing). And if the matter is clear to us [that the second blessing is not in vain], then why should we say "May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever"? And the truth is that the Levush didn't mention it [saying, "May the Honored Name..."]. (And also the Bach doubted this matter, and the Ma'adanei Yom Tov wrote that it is the proper thing to say. And it needs further investigation.) And simply we could say that the Ashkenazi Jews ruled to make two blessings, and only our Rabbi the Rem"a was unclear about this matter. And he couldn't change the custom [of saying two blessings] and therefore he ruled this way [to say, "May the Honored Name..."]. And according to this, someone whose heart hurts him can make one blessing (since it would be too much effort to make two). And we have heard that some Great [Rabbis] would make an effort to answer "Amen" between the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh, and they would then consider this an interruption [so that they could fulfill the idea of] making a blessing on the Shel Rosh according to all opinions. (And in the Beit Yosef he was surprised at the Mahari Ben Chaviv who practiced [to say "About the Mitzvah of"], since who would force himself to enter into a doubt of a blessing in vain and save himself with the saying of, "May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever"? See there.)
Orach Chaim.25.12
And according to my humble opinion, it seems that the saying of "May the Honored Name of [God's] Kingdom be blessed forever and ever" is not for the reason of doubt of blessing, rather because of a different reason. And even though the Halachic Authorities wrote that it is for this reason, in any case it seems to me that the custom arises from a different reason: That we already questioned how can one make two blessings on one thing? And also there have been who have challenged on the core of the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, since we taught in a Tosefta in Brachot chapter 6, and so wrote the Rambam in the first chapter of Ma'asrot, that if one separates Teruma, and Terumat Ma'aser, and Ma'aser Sheni [together] as one — he makes one blessing upon all of them. And if so, how can they establish two blessings upon the two Tefillin [when they are being performed together as one Mitzvah]? (The Gra. And the suggested answer of the Artzot Chayim is surprising, see there.)
Orach Chaim.25.14
In the word "Tefillin" the Lamed (Hebrew letter: ל) is Dagush (Has a dot in it: לּ, in Hebrew grammar, when there is a dot in a letter other than the letters of בג״ד כפ״ת, it is drawn out), since the Shoresh (root) of the word is Pallel (פ.ל.ל.) as I have written in the name of the Tur. And it should theoretically be written with two Lameds (It is written תפילין when it should theoretically be written תפיללין in order to match up with the root of the word), but the Dagush (the dot in the letter) fills in the missing letter, as is known. And thus when one says "To place the Tefillin", and so with "About the Mitzvah of Tefillin" — he should draw out the Lamed (ל) as is the way with Dagush-es. And he should say "להניח - Le'Honeach (To place)" with the Hey (Hebrew letter: ה) pronounced with a Kamatz (vowel underneath a letter, pronounced by Ashkenazim "o" as in "off") since it is the language of placing - on the hand - like "to place (Le'Honiach) a blessing upon your house" (Ezekiel 44:30), and not with a Patach (vowel underneath a letter: אַ, pronounced as "o" as in "octagon") which is the language of abandonment (meaning that the word "Le'Haniach" means abandonment), like "leave (Hanichu) your one brother with me" (Genesis 42:33) with a Makaf (a dash under the letter: a Patach). And "על מצות - Al Mitzvat (About the Mitzvah of)" with a Patach underneath the Vav (Hebrew letter: ו), that since it is only said upon the Shel Rosh it must be in the singular (Thus, it is "Al Mitzvat" as in "another", which would be the singular, as opposed to Al Mitzvot, as in "ode", which would be the plural). And even if it would be said that the blessing is upon both [of the Tefillin], isn't it written: "The commandment (singular, Mitzvat) of Hashem is clear and lights up the eyes", this is referring to all the commandments [of the Torah]. And in any case the use of a Patach is singular language (Magen Avraham), that all the commandments are [really] one Mitzvah, meaning: that the Holy One, Blessed be [God] commanded us. And there are those who say "Al Mitzvot" with a Cholam (Hebrew vowel above a letter and to the left or above a Vav: רֹ or וֹ, making the "o" sound as in "ode", which is thus plural) but when they have only the Shel Rosh they say it with the Patach, because [they only have] the singular [Shel Rosh] (Turei Zahav in the name of his brother). And the main custom is like the first one ("Al Mitzvat" with a Patach), and so ruled the Great Achronim (Eliyah Rabbah, and the Graz, and Levushei Srad, and the Derech Ha'Chayim).
Orach Chaim.25.15
It is known that with all Mitzvot, one must make the blessing "Passing over doing them", meaning: before doing them, and immediately before doing them. And therefore one should not make the blessing on the Shel Yad ["Le'Honiach Tefillin (To place the Tefillin)"] before he places it upon his bicep, that being the place for the placing of the Tefillin as I have written in chapter 27, because then [the blessing] would not be immediate the tying which is the actual action of the Mitzvah, and [one should not make the blessing] after the tying since we need [the blessing to] "Pass over doing them". Rather, one should place the [Tefillin Shel Yad] upon his bicep, and hold the strap in his right hand (since he is putting the Tefillin on his left arm. If he was putting his Tefillin on his right arm, he would hold the strap in his left hand) and make the blessing, and immediately tighten [the strap] as that is the actual tying of the Mitzvah. And so one should do with the Shel Rosh — he should make the blessing before he tightens it, and this is after the placing upon the head and before the tightening (Magen Avraham). And according to this one must be careful not to expose his head (Pri Magdim), and one should place his Tallit over his head (so that his head is covered when he makes the blessing). And this is difficult, specifically for young lads who don't have a Tallit, of course. And thus there are those who practice to hold the Shel ROsh beside the head and make the blessing, and then immediately place it upon his head, since this is also [considered] immediate to the action. And know that all this is optimal. But sub-optimally, when one didn't make the blessing before [placing the Tefillin and tightening it] — he should make the blessing after this, since [the Tefillin] is placed for a long time (Pri Magdim). And this is similar to someone who didn't say "Hamotzee (the blessing on bread)" before he began eating, he should make the blessing in the middle of the meal. And that is the law here, however one must shift the Tefillin when he is making the blessing since the shifting is kind of like placing.
Orach Chaim.25.16
Optimally, it is forbidden to interrupt in any form of speaking between [the placing of] the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh. And if one did speak between — he goes back and makes the blessing of "About the Mitzvah of Tefillin" on the Shel Rosh. And this is for those who make only one blessing on both of them. For those who make two blessings — he should make two blessings upon the Shel Rosh [if he interrupted], as was explained. And this is what he should do: He should shift the Shel Yad and tighten the tie and make both blessings on the Shel Rosh, since it will be like one [blessing] on the Shel Yad because of the shifting, and one [blessing] on the Shel Rosh (Magen Avraham in the name of the Ran, see there). And this is because of the surprising matter of making two blessings on one thing. And we already explained this with the support of Heaven.
Orach Chaim.25.17
And the fact that conversation is considered an interruption, this is only when one conversed not for the need of the Tefillin. But if one conversed for the need of the Tefillin, even though optimally he should refrain from doing this if it's not something that is pertinent that one needs to interrupt for the need of Tefillin — he does not need to make another blessing, since any conversation that is for the need of the Mitzvah that one is involved in is not considered an interruption. And if one hears Kaddish or Kedusha when he is in between [the placing of] the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh, our Rabbi the Beit Yosef wrote in paragraph 10 that "he should not interrupt to answer with them. Rather he should be silent and listen and intend to what they are saying." Since regarding the matter of answering Kedusha and Kaddish and "Barchu", [the rule of] one who listens [and intends] is like one who is answering/saying [the Kedusha...], but regarding the idea of interruption it is not considered an interruption. But if one did answer Kaddish..., there are those who say that he should go back and make another blessing on the Shel Rosh (Magen Avraham). And there are those who say that one need not go back and make another blessing, that since he has the obligation regarding this matter [to answer] – it is no worse than conversing for the need of the Tefillin (Turei Zahav). And this seems to be the prominent view. (And from the language of the Shulchan Aruch it implies that one doesn't need to interrupt in order to answer "Amen" even in a regular hearing [that is not between Tefillin]. But perhaps he just didn't mention this, since he also didn't mention "Barchu". And if you investigate you will find that it is simple.)
Orach Chaim.25.18
Something that is understood by all is that when one says the blessing of "To place", this applies also to the Shel Rosh, and this is not necessary [to point out] for those who only say one blessing, but even to those who say two blessings, in any case the blessing of "to place" applies to the Shel Rosh as well. And thus one should limit the interruption as much as possible. And thus our rabbi the Beit Yosef wrote in paragraph 11 that "After one binds the Shel Yad upon the arm — he should place the Shel Rosh before he wraps the strap around the arm." And the Tur wrote that the Rosh Z"l practiced this way, even though he held that we make two blessings (the Beit Yosef rules Sephardic so he only said one blessing). But in any event we do not practice so. And it was written that the Arizal would wrap the wraps and afterwards place the Shel Rosh, even though he would, Z"l, make only one blessing. And simply one can explain the reason: That since the wraps one is required to do, they are also considered part of the placing of the Tefillin, and thus are not an interruption. Further, that it is known that if one does not wrap the wraps the tie of the Shel Yad will loosen, and it will be that the Shel Rosh will be placed before the Shel Yad. Besides these, they have written that there are hidden reasons for this as well (see Turei Zahav, and Magen Avraham). And so is the custom and one should not change it.
Orach Chaim.25.19
And so one should not take the Shel Rosh out of the case until he places the Shel Yad. And even if they are both before him outside of the case — he shouldn't fix the Shel Rosh to prepare to place the Shel Rosh before the he places the Shel Yad, that if he does this since he is dealing with the Shel Rosh and then places it [back on the table], and then he places [on his arm] the Shel Yad first (as one has to do, that the Shel Yad comes first) — behold, he is passing on the performance of a Mitzvah, and we don't pass on the performance of a Mitzvah, as I have written. And thus, we practice to place both of them in one case, and we place the Shel Rosh on the right and the Shel Yad on the left. And we always do this. That way, one can open the case and turn to the left and take the Shel Yad and place it, and then afterwards take the Shel Rosh from the case and place it on his head. (One can do this every time because he will remember every time that the Shel Yad is on the left.) And specifically he should be strict with himself. But if someone else takes his Shel Rosh out first and prepares it before the person who is going to place the Tefillin — one need not be strict.
Orach Chaim.25.21
The Tur wrote that, "Every [time] that one places [the Tefillin] in the day — he makes a blessing. Even if they are removed from their place [on their own], and he shifts them to return them to their place — he must make a blessing." [The m]eaning [of the second part is]: [the Tur] didn't need to mention that when he takes them off purposefully and places them back on after some time that he must make a blessing, rather [he is coming to teach that] even if they were only removed from their place on their own, and he shifted them back to their place immediately — he must make the blessing. And it isn't because of the small interruption of time, since he explained above in Chapter 8 (?????) — he doesn't make another blessing, see there. Rather, since they are removed without intention, thus a person is obligated to make another blessing, even if [he returned them] immediately. And [the first part of the above Tur], that a person is obligated to make a blessing every [time] that he places them, this is when he removed them with the intention to not wear them [again], or to wear them after a long time. And that [the Tur said] "even [if they are removed...]", is because if they are removed by themselves it is considered as a long time even if it was only for a short time. (?????)
Orach Chaim.25.22
And according to the opinion of the Tur, one who removes his Tefillin to go to the bathroom, with the intention to place them immediately upon returning — one doesn't need to make a[nother] blessing. But our Rabbi the Beit Yosef in paragraph 12 disagrees, as he wrote: "If they are removed from their place...— one needs to make the blessing. If one moved them from their place with the intention to return them [to their place] immediately — one needs to make a blessing." Since he thinks that any [time] they are removed from their place, whether intentionally or not, whether with the intention to return them immediately or not — he needs to make a blessing. And about this our Rabbi the Rem"a wrote: "There are those who say not to make the blessing, and so is practiced," and this is about one who moves them from their place with the intention to return them immediately, like the opinion of the Tur, as we have explained. And we practice this way. And further than this: even if they are removed from their place on their own — we don't practice to make a blessing. And I don't know the reason, since everyone agrees that one should make the blessing. And there are those who have written that the reason is that during the time of prayer simply one doesn't take his mind off of them, and [the Tefillin being removed on their own] is like one took them off in order to return them (Magen Avraham in the name of the Shelah).
Orach Chaim.36.1
The Sofer (scribe) must be very precise in writing the letters, so that the form of each letter will never be changed at all, or that it does not look like a letter at all, as when the Yuds of an Alef are attached to the full body of the Alef. And similarly, [the Sofer should be precise] in the case of a letter that looks much like another, as in the case of Heh: If one does not separate the left leg enough, it might look like a Chet; and conversely, with a Chet [whose left leg] is not sufficiently connected, it would look like a Heh. This rule applies to all similar [letters]. And see, even the Holy Tannaitic Sages would warn each other to be alert to this. As is noted in Eruvin (13a), Rabbi Ishmael warns Rabbi Meir, who was a Sofer, saying to him: "Be cautious, my son, for your work is Heavenly work, etc." See there. And Kal vaChomer (a fortiori): [If this applies to] the son [of Rabbi Ishmael], how much moreso it applies to us, who are ants by comparison, we must be cautious. And for the cautious Sofer -- there is boundless reward; and conversely, there would be boundless punishment. (Do not make a letter with a break in the middle, like "<>".),
Orach Chaim.40.5
One forgot, and "used his bed" in tefillin. He should not grab them by the straps, much less by the tefillin themselves, until he has washed his hands. For the hands are "busybodies" and he certainly touched a place that requires hand washing. And when he washes his hands, he should take them off until he has washed off the emission, and then he is permitted to wear them again, for someone who is impure because of a seminal emission is permitted to wear tefillin. And if he sleeps in tefillin and has an emission, he should not grab them by the boxes. Rather, he should grab them by the straps and take them off until he has washed the emission off himself and washed his hands. Our master, the Beit Yosef wrote in subsections 8: "One who goes in to an established meal should remove them and set them on the table until the time for the blessing (grace after meals), and then put them on again. However one who is eating a snack need not remove them." For it is permitted to eat a snack in tefillin. This is according to their custom, for they would go the whole day in their tefillin, but not for us. It seems to me that by us, it is not correct even to eat a casual meal in tefillin.
Orach Chaim.46.9
In Talmudic times, each person would say all the morning blessings in their home, since they were holy and scrupulous even in their sleep not to let their hands touch their intimate places. But now it is impossible to recite these blessings at home individually, since our hands are unclean. It is possible, of course, to clean our hands by wiping them on the wall or something else as soon as we awake - but since many people are ignorant of this, and don't even know the blessings - it is customary to recite them all at the synagogue and have the people answer Amen! after each one. We say these blessings at home after netilat yadayim, and after the appropriate cleansing. But we do not say each blessing in its place, for a number of reasons.
Orach Chaim.51.5
One must be careful not to create a pause by speaking between "Barukh She-'Amar" until the end of the Amidah. Even for the sake of a mitzvah one should not stop between "Barukh She-'Amar" and "Yishtabach". And thus one should not stop between "Yishtabach" and "Yotsér 'Or"; this is illuminated in Siman 54. Our teacher the Bét Yosef wrote in Se'if 5: between these psalms we may ask after those honored in our community and respond to a greeting from any person. And in the middle of a psalm we may ask after those revered in our community and respond to those honored. Until here is [the Bét Yosef's] teaching, and the Tur wrote likewise. The explanation for "after those revered" and "honored" is illumnated in Siman 66. P'suké D'Zimrah is like the blessings of the recitation of Shema, and thus it is forbidden to answer "amén" in the middle of a chapter [or a particular psalm]. However, in the writings of the AR"I, may his memory be blessed, he ruled that one may interrupt to answer "Amen" (see Magén Avraham, Se'if Katan 3), and even in the middle of the blessing "Barukh She-'Amar" it is permissible to answer "Amén" (same). It seems to me that the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh agree with regard to "amén", since "amen" does not diminish from all the songs and praises. Rather because he does not intend himself to pause with ordinary speaking, like within the blessings of the recitation of Shema, it does not apply to responding "amén". And this is how we behave. However, to respond "barukh hu uvarukh shemo" -- [this is forbidden], since it is not based in law at all.
Orach Chaim.53.8
Our teacher the Rema wrote: One who transgressed unintentionally, such as one who killed a person unintentionally, and then repented—is permitted to be a prayer leader. But if he acted intentionally—no, for in any case a bad reputation went out about him before the repentance. Thus far his words. From this language it seems that if intentional, even once, repentance does not help regarding his appointment as prayer leader, while if unintentional it helps for one time. This is puzzling: for an unintentional act, why should it disqualify him even if done multiple times? For regarding unintentional acts there is obviously no bad reputation. And we must say that his intention is not regarding one time, for with one time even if intentional, since he repented—he is permitted to be a prayer leader, for since he repented the bad reputation is immediately nullified. And his disqualification for intentional acts is only when he did it several times, but for unintentional acts even in such a case he is fit, and so it seems from his words in his work Darkei Moshe, see there. And what he wrote "for in any case a bad reputation went out about him before the repentance," this is its meaning: since he did it several times, even though he repented each time, nevertheless before the repentance a bad reputation went out about him each time. And some wrote that the disqualification of "a bad reputation went out about him" applies only on fast days and not on other days of the year. But it seems to me that a permanent prayer leader for the entire year is more important than one for a fast day. (See Magen Avraham subsection 8, and examine carefully and you will find it easy.) And know that what he wrote "killed a person"—this is not precise, and the same law applies to another transgression (Eliyahu Rabbah). And there is room to doubt regarding rabbinic transgressions when he repented, whether it is called "a bad reputation went out about him" or not. And it seems there is no distinction between Torah law and rabbinic law.
Orach Chaim.55.1
The Kaddish is great and awesome praise that the Men of the Great Assembly fixed after the destruction of the First Temple. It is a prayer about the desecration of the Blessed Name from the destruction of the Sanctuary, the decimation of the Holy Land, and the dispersion of Israel to the 4 corners of the earth. We pray 'let the Blessed name be magnified and sanctified' as the prophet said: "I will make myself greater and more sanctified and be known to the nations, and they will know that I am Hashem." As R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot, once a Bat Kol was heard cooing like a dove and saying: 'Oy to the children, that because of their sins, I destroyed My house, and burned my temple, and exiled them...' And Eliahu the prophet said to him, that three times each day a Bat Kol like this is heard. And further, at the time Israel enters its synagogues and study halls, and they answer 'amen! yehei shmei raba...amen ! May His great Name be blessed', the Holy One of Blessing nods his head and says, 'happy is the King who is praised like this in His house. What it is to be a Father who exiled His children? And woe to the children who were exiled from the table of their Father.' And because of its elevated status, it was decreed that it [the Kaddish] would be recited in Aramaic, because in Babylonia they spoke this language. And thus, so that everyone would understand it, [the Kaddish] was established in the spoken tongue. And, additionally, there are hidden reasons for this.
Orach Chaim.55.2
R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot that one time a Divine Voice was heard
Orach Chaim.55.3
R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot that one time a Divine Voice was heard
Orach Chaim.55.4
R. Yosi said at the beginning of Berakhot that one time a Divine Voice was heard
Orach Chaim.55.13
And this is the wording of our master, the Beit Yosef, in paragraph 6: “If one of the ten began to pray alone and cannot respond with them, or he is asleep—nevertheless he is counted with them.” So far his words, and the reason is as we explained. However, there is one who disagrees regarding the sleeping person and holds that he is not counted. And it is not similar to one who is standing in the midst of prayer, for he can remain silent and hear the Kaddish and Kedushah, which is not the case with a sleeping person (Taz 4). Furthermore, one who is in the midst of prayer is engaged in heavenly matters, whereas a sleeping person is, for the moment, like a dead body; therefore we bless [upon waking], “Who restores souls to dead corpses.” So how can he be counted? Nevertheless, there are those who uphold his words (Magen Avraham 8; Eliyah Rabbah 7). However, they should not count more than one [sleeper] (Magen Avraham, ibid.). But those who are in the midst of prayer—they may count up to four. However, regarding a sleeper, certainly, ideally, he should be awakened. And regarding one who is still in the midst of prayer, our master the Beit Yosef wrote in paragraph 7: “When one is praying alone, it is proper that the others wait before saying Kaddish until he finishes, so that he too can merit [to respond].” So far his words. But if he prolongs excessively, they should not wait for him. And a sick person, when he is mentally competent, is counted if he is lying in the room with those praying. But if he is not mentally competent, it seems to me that he is not counted. And even for those who hold that a sleeping person is counted—it is not comparable to a sick person, for a sleeping person can be awakened, which is not the case with a sick person. (And there is a proof for this from Gittin 72b; see there, examine carefully and you will find it clear.)
Orach Chaim.59.13
13. The Brakha of "Yotzeir," one should say quietly along with the shaliach tzibbur. One shouldn't rely on hearing it from the shaliach tzibbur and just answering "Amen," for two reasons: first, because in the Shilhi, Rosh Hashanah they said that the shaliach tzibbur only discharges the obligation of one who is not an expert (and able to pray for themselves) and not one who an expert; and further, because even if we say that he may also fulfill the obligation of an expert, as we will explain, nonetheless, perhaps one will not hear well, and will miss some words by listening and will not fulfill the obligation. Therefore, it is better to say it oneself with the shaliach tzibbur. The shaliach tzibbur should say it out loud, and the individual should say it quietly and not out loud, for if he also says it out loud, they won't be able to hear the voice of the shaliach tzibbur, for two voices together are not heard. This cannot be, for the shaliach tzibbur needs to fulfill the obligation of those who are not expert. And one should complete the brakha before the shaliach tzibbur in order to answer "Amen," to the brakha of the shaliach tzibbur, for in the middle it is forbidden to interrupt. It seems to me that this is when the shaliach tzibbur speaks at a moderate pace. However, if he rushes, it is better to say it at a moderate pace and not answer "Amen," for the Amein is not absolutely necessary for one who is saying it on his own, and he is not fulfilling his obligation through the blessing of the shaliach tzibbur. So, too, with the rest of the berakhot of Shacharit and Arvit. And this is the meaning of the Tur. (And this is the explanation of the words of the Shulchan Arukh in clause 4, examine it and it will be clear).
Orach Chaim.60.3
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.)
Orach Chaim.61.11
The recitation of Shema contains 245 words. In order to complete 248 words corresponding to the limbs of a person, the prayer leader concludes with "Hashem Elokeichem Emet" (the Lord your God is true), and repeats aloud "Hashem Eloheichem Emet." Through this, every person fulfills the requirement, since they hear these three words from the prayer leader. If an individual also wishes to say them along with the prayer leader, we do not object. One should not ask: since the Shema has 245 words, and with the word "Emet" it becomes 246, then when repeating "Hashem Eloheichem Emet" it becomes 249 words? One can answer that the second "Emet" is not included in the count, as it belongs to "v'yatziv v'nachon" [the following blessing]. Nor should one ask: how can one say "Emet" twice? For the Gemara (14b) criticized saying "Emet Emet." That applies only when saying them without intervening words. But with an interruption, there is no issue. However, some great authorities hold that the first time one does not conclude with "Emet," but rather "Ani Hashem Elokeichem," and afterwards says "Hashem Elokeichem Emet." According to this it is exactly 248 words, and one does not say "Emet" twice. This is the opinion of Rama of Fano in Asarah Ma'amarot, and some follow this practice.
Orach Chaim.61.12
The authors of the Shulchan Arukh wrote that if one is reciting individually, one should focus on the 15 vavs in the blessing "Emet v'yatziv," which equal 90. These correspond to three Tetragrammatons, for each name equals 26, plus four letters equals 30. Another reason is that the 15 vavs equal 90, and the recitation counts as one, which makes 91, which is the value of the Name as it is read and as it is written. It's as if you said "Hashem Lord, True." There are those who write that one who recites the Shema alone should say "El Melekh Ne'eman Shema Yisrael." For these three words make the total 248, and this is in place of the "Amein" that one would have said after the blessing "who chooses his people Israel with love," and this is the custom. Nonetheless, when one is reciting with the shaliach tzibbur, one shouldn't say "El Melekh Ne'eman," but should only say "Amen" after the shaliach tzibbur, when he finishes the brakha. This is the custom and it is correct. End quote. There are some among the great authorities who grumble a lot about interrupting with "El Melekh Ne'eman even when reciting individually (Magen Avraham clause 4, in the name of the Maharshal), and we don't have the custom to say this. There are those who also repeat "Hashem Elokeikhem Emet" when reciting individually, and I do't know what they base this. It would be better to repeat the words "Etkhem Mei'eretz Mitzrayim" which don't contain a divine name, and I have seen some doing this.
Orach Chaim.66.1
They taught in beginning of Chapter Two of the Mishnah Berakhot, that in the middle of the chapter, one may greet out of awe and answer out of honor, and in between the chapters, one may greet out of honor and may answer the greeting of any person. That is that when one is in the middle of the berakha of "Yozeir" or of "Ahavah Rabba," or in the middle of one of the sections of the Shema, or in the middle of the blessing after the recitation of Shema, and a man whom he is obligated to honor passes in front of him, nonetheless he shouldn't greet him, but if this man greets him, he answers his greeting. However, if a man whom it would be appropriate to be in awe passes in front of him, then he may greet him and all the more so, answer. However, between the sections, for instance between "Yotzeir" and "Ahava Rabba" and between "Ahavah and Shema" and between "Shema and "Vehaya Im Shamoa" and between "Vehayah and Vayomer," he may greet even a man whom he is only obligated to honor, but it is permitted to answer anyone. And there is a debate concerning who is "because of honor" and who is "because of awe"
Orach Chaim.66.2
Behold, Rashi explains "because of honor," a person who is honored, that it would be appropriate to greet them first. And "becuase of awe," this is a person of whom one is afraid lest he kill him. The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah and in composition, explains "because of awe" like Rashi. However, he explains "because of honor" as a person whom one is obligated to honor, such as one's father or rabbi. And the Rosh and the Rashba raise a difficulty with their explanation of "because of awe," that if they is any concern of murder, it's obvious [that one is allowed to interrupt] and what is the Mishnah coming to teach us? Doesn't saving a life take precedence over everything else?! Therefore the explanation of "becuase of awe" is for instance, his fatehr or his rabbi, whom he is obligated to revere, and the explanation of "because of honor" is an honorable person, as Rashi explained. The Tur and the Shulchan Arukh wrote this in paragraph 1. And our master, the Beit Yosef expands "because of awe" to include one who is greater than him in wisdom. This is surprising, for the Rashba wrote explicitly that this is in the category of "because of honor," unless he meant one of the great sage of the generation. For thus writes the Trumat HaDeshen (Ch. 135) that one must be in awe of a great sage who is exceedingly wise.
Orach Chaim.91.6
In our country, it is improper to pray even with a small head covering, as a formal hat—the kind worn in the street—is required; likewise, one should not pray in a short jacket (kaptyl) or a housecoat (stub-halat) if they are not considered appropriate street attire, as the general rule is that one must be dressed for prayer as they would appear in public. Regarding an uncovered head, covering it with one’s own hand is ineffective unless a sleeve is pulled over the hand first, though having another person place their hand on one's head is acceptable, and straw-woven hats are considered valid coverings. It is strictly forbidden to utter God’s name with an uncovered head, and while historical distinctions were made between wool and linen leggings, they are irrelevant in our region; however, wearing felt boots (valenki) during prayer is permitted in winter since they are then standard public footwear.
Orach Chaim.106.1
...All those who are exempt from the obligation of reciting the Shema - those who are involved in fulfilling a commandment or are concerned with fulfilling a commandment, and those who are dealing with a dead body - are exempt from the obligation to pray. There is one aspect of the obligation of prayer that is more lenient in exempting than the obligation of reading the Shema, as the rabbis said in the Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter: "Those carrying the coffin..., those who are still needed to carry the coffin are exempt, and those who are no longer needed to carry it are obligated. But both are exempt from the obligation to pray." The reason is, for those who hold that the obligation to pray is rabbinic, it is simple: The obligation to recite the Shema is from the Torah, while the obligation to pray is rabbinic. And for those who hold the obligation to pray is from the Torah, it is because prayer requires one to stand, and they do not have time to do so; though this is not the case regarding the recitation of the Shema - they can say it all while they walk, except for the first verse (Tosafot R"Y)
Orach Chaim.106.7
And this is definitely true that according to Rashi, women are required to pray three times a day, the same way men are obligated, since according to him, there is no difference in Rabbinical law [regarding prayer] between a time-bound (which women are mostly exempt from Biblically) and a non-time-bound obligation. Tosfot would opine similarly, since according to their view, the Talmud explicitly states: although [prayer is] a time-bound obligation, nonetheless, since [the drive to pray stems from a universal human tendency] to seek [G-d's] mercy, the Rabbis obligated them, and naturally, they are obligated the same way men are. However, according to Rif and the Rambam, whose text [of the Talmud] does not include the reasoning that [the obligation to pray stems from a universal human tendency] to seek [G-d's] mercy, rather, argue that [women] are obligated Biblically [in prayer] since it is not a time-bound commandment, would naturally say that [women] are only required [to pray] once daily and [can choose any words they desire express prayer] (lit. "in any textual version"). It is impossible to say that the Rabbinic decree to pray three times daily and in [their obligated] time applies to [women] as well, for if that were so, why would the Talmud [rhetorically] reply "But that is obvious?!" (to the Mishna's statement that women are obligated in prayer, See Aruch HaShulchan : Chelek 1 : Siman 106 : 5)? [That rhetorical question is not logically sensible since the Mishna's statement is not at all obvious] rather it teaches us a great deal! Really, what I previously wrote is the correct way [to explain the matter].
Orach Chaim.111.1
One must be very careful to juxtapose the blessing of Redemption directly to the Amidah prayer, meaning not to interrupt with anything between "Who redeemed Israel" and the Eighteen Blessings. Our Sages of blessed memory said (Berakhot 9b): Whoever juxtaposes Redemption to Prayer will not be harmed the entire day. And in the Jerusalem Talmud (first chapter, end of halakhah 5): Immediately after Redemption comes Prayer, as it says: "May they be pleasing... and my Redeemer" — this refers to Redemption, and adjacent to it: "May the Lord answer you on the day of trouble" — this refers to Prayer. And whoever immediately connects Redemption to Prayer, the Satan does not accuse on that day. And whoever does not juxtapose Redemption to Prayer, to what is he compared? To a beloved of a king who came and knocked on the king's door. The king came out to see what he seeks, and found that he had departed — so too does he depart. See there.
Orach Chaim.111.2
The Tur wrote: But "Amen" after "Ga'al Yisrael" is not considered an interruption. And so ruled our teacher the Rema. However, our teacher the Beit Yosef ruled not to answer "Amen" after "Ga'al Yisrael." And this is according to the Zohar, and this is our practice, as I wrote in siman 66, that even Kaddish, Kedushah, and "Barchu" one should not answer between Geulah and Tefillah. And one waits at "Shirah Chadashah" as explained there. And the Tur wrote that some have the custom to say verses beforehand, such as: "Shome'a Tefillah adecha kol basar yavo'u" [Psalms 65:3], "Ki shem Hashem ekra havu godel l'Elokeinu" [Deuteronomy 32:3] — but one should not say them as it constitutes an interruption. However, "Hashem sefatai tiftach ufi yagid tehilatecha" [Psalms 51:17] — is not an interruption, since the Rabbis instituted it in the prayer — it is like a long Geulah (Gemara). But in Musaf and Minchah one may say "Hashem sefatai tiftach" beforehand if he wishes, but not afterward.
Orach Chaim.111.3
Our teacher the Rema wrote that some say that the requirement to juxtapose Geulah to Tefillah applies specifically on weekdays or festivals, but on Shabbat it is not required. And it is good to be stringent unless one needs to do otherwise. Thus far his language. The reason for this opinion is that since we derive this from "May the Lord answer you on the day of distress," and Shabbat is not a day of distress. On festivals, however, it is like weekdays because judgment takes place on them, as we learned in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah: On Pesach they are judged concerning grain, on Shavuot concerning the fruit of the tree... But many great authorities have agreed that this verse "May He answer you" is merely support for this, but the juxtaposition of Geulah to Tefillah is part of the essential law of prayer. Therefore it applies on Shabbat as well, and such is the custom. Only at Maariv is there more leniency than at Shacharit, and this will be explained in Section 236 with God's help.
Orach Chaim.111.4
The prayer leader, when he must repeat the prayer aloud, should say beforehand "Lord, open my lips..." And at its conclusion he should say quietly "May the words..." And although we do not find a prohibition for the prayer leader to interrupt between the silent prayer and the loud prayer, nevertheless it is proper not to interrupt. And he should not say any verse except "Lord, open my lips..." (see Magen Avraham subsection 4). And if before he recited the Shema he found a congregation praying—he should not pray with them, but rather pray in order so that he can juxtapose Geulah to Tefillah, which is preferable to praying with a congregation. This applies to Shacharit. But at Maariv it is not so, as will be explained in Section 236 with God's help.
Orach Chaim.119.2
Know that it is obvious that our sages, their memory for a blessing, only allowed adding to the Shemoneh Esrei temporarily as the occasion required it. However, to add a regular, fixed prayer in the Shemoneh Esrei is an excessively arrogant and disrespectful [act] against the Men of the Great Assembly [who composed the Shemoneh Esrei]. And regarding this every Torah scholar agrees, as do all in whom the fear of G-d is in their midst. Accordingly, one should cry out against the publishers who have added in the prayer books in "Hear our voices" a fixed prayer: "Please G-d, I have sinned..." "You are the One who feeds and sustains...". Many of the commoners say this [insertion] regularly like all the prayer of Shemoneh Esrei", and my heart is sick upon me over this act. I have heard that one of the leaders of the past generation [protested] loudly over this. However, because of our many sins, "the world has been given over to fools" (see Sanhedrin 46b), and the publishers do whatever they want and we don't have the ability to [successfully] object. [Regarding] this that they cite from the Zohar that it is good to request regularly regarding one's sustenance even if one is wealthy, or to confess one's sins (Magen Avraham 1), this is indeed the case, but not to make a fixed formulation in the middle of the prayers of the Men of the Great Assembly. And if he wants to he can say them after the [Shemoneh Esrei] prayer, after [he says the completing verse] "May they find favor..." (Psalms 19:15), and [then] who would protest [his doing this]? The [sages] have already said in the Talmud that after the [Shemoneh Esrei] prayer one can say even like the [lengthy] prayer order of Yom Kippur.
Orach Chaim.131.12
The Rambam wrote at the end of chapter five: It is a widespread custom among all of Israel that they do not fall on their faces on Shabbat, festivals, Rosh Hashanah, Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, and Purim; nor at mincha on the eves of Shabbat and festivals, nor at maariv every day. There are individuals who fall [on their faces] at maariv. On Yom Kippur they fall on their faces at every prayer, because it is a day of supplication, petition, and fasting. Thus far his words. We have neither known nor heard of this custom to say tachanun on Yom Kippur, nor of individuals who fall at maariv. Our rabbis, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 6: The custom is not to fall on one's face on the fifteenth of Av, nor on the fifteenth of Shevat, nor on Rosh Chodesh nor at the mincha before it, nor on Chanukah. Some say also at the mincha before it, and so is the custom. On Purim we do not fall on our faces, and on Lag B'Omer we do not fall. Similarly on erev Yom Kippur, and on erev Rosh Hashanah even at shacharit. It is a widespread custom not to fall on one's face throughout the entire month of Nissan, nor on Tisha B'Av, nor between Yom Kippur and Sukkot, nor from the beginning of Rosh Chodesh Sivan until after Shavuot. There are places that do not fall for seven days after Shavuot, because its celebration has make-up days for all seven [days] (Magen Avraham subsection 18). They did not count Pesach Sheni, which is surprising, though the Sephardic custom is not to fall on it. Some have the custom not to fall from after Sukkot until after Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan, since most days of the month were without falling on the face. This is not the essential position. Know that on Lag B'Omer one must be very careful. There was an incident with a certain great person who was accustomed every day to say "Nachem" in prayer, and said it also on Lag B'Omer and was punished (Magen Avraham subsection 13 in the name of Kavvanot). Know that from the words of our rabbis, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, it is clear that at mincha before the fifteenth of Av, the fifteenth of Shevat, Lag B'Omer, and Purim—we do fall, since they wrote explicitly only regarding Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah. Our custom is not like this, as is known.
Orach Chaim.133.1
After “U’Va L’Tzion” the leader says the Kaddish “Titkabel” (the added part starting from Titkabel), that ends the Tefillah. However, we have the practice to say afterwards the great praise of “Aleinu L’Shabei’ach,” that the early generations said that Yehoshua Bin Nun established it when he conquered Jericho. And the Arizal strongly suggested to say it after every Tefillah, out loud, standing, and with joy. And one should bow at the words “Va’Anachnu Kor’im (And we bend our knees).” And our Rabbi the Rema cautioned “to say it with intention in the previous chapter. And one should pause slightly before the words “ Va’Anachnu Kor’im (And we bend our knees)” (in order that it will not sound as if what we are saying falls on the previous words, God forbid). And we say the mourner’s Kaddish after “Aleinu.” And even if there is no mourner in the Shul at the time, one who does not have parents should recite it. Even one who has parents can recite [the Kaddish] if his parents are not strict [about not saying Kaddish while they are alive].” [This is because] this last Kaddish has a great purpose to fulfill four Kaddishes at Shacharit. And through saying “Aleinu” we strengthen our faith, [and our belief that] there is no power besides [God], blessed be [God], and the hope to fix the world in the Kingdom of God (see the Ba”ch). And some say “V’Chisei Ch’vodo BaShamayim MiMa’al ([God’s] Throne of Honor is in the Heavens on high).” And there are some who say “U’Moshav Yekaro ([God’s] Seat of Glory) [etc.]” [instead], and the Tur wrote that this is indeed the version of the Sefer HaYecholot, see there. Yet anyway we say “V’Chisei Ch’vodo ([God’s] Throne of Honor [etc.]” for the reason that is known to us.
Orach Chaim.139.5
Our rabbi the Beit Yosef wrote in paragraph 3 that the custom is that the prayer leader may, when he wishes, recite the blessing and read without taking permission, because it is as if from the time they appointed him as prayer leader they gave him permission for this. These are his words. And our rabbi the Rema wrote regarding this that in these countries they do not practice this way, and the cantor does not ascend except when the gabbai tells him to ascend. However, they do not call him by his name like the other people called to the Torah, whom they call by their names "so-and-so son of so-and-so." These are his words. For in the country of our rabbi the Beit Yosef, the prayer leader calls all those who are called up on his own initiative, and therefore it is as if they gave him permission to ascend on his own, for if not, who would call him? But in these countries, the prayer leader only calls those whom the gabbai tells him to call, and therefore the gabbai also calls him [differently] — it is not appropriate to call him [in the usual way], since he is standing by the Torah scroll and it is not appropriate to say "let him stand" since he is already standing here. Rather, [the gabbai] tells him that he will be among those called up. (This seems to me to be the reason based on Darkei Moshe section 1 and the Vilna Gaon subsection 5.)
Orach Chaim.151.1
Synagogues and study halls have great holiness since we pray in them and learn in them Torah. These locations have a reflection of the sanctity of the Temple. Our wise ones of blessed memory said, "And these will be small Temples" (Megilah 29a)-these are the Synagogues and study halls. And this that is written, "O Lord, You have been our dwelling place throughout all generations"(Psalms 90:1)- these are the Synagogues and study halls. Even in the time of the destruction [of the Temple], they still have sanctity as it is written, "and I will desolate your sanctuaries" (Lev. 26:31)-"They are still sanctuaries even when they are desolate" (Megilah 28a). Therefore, Synagogues and study halls are not treated with lightheartedness, for example, with games, humor and small talk. The Arizal (R' Issac Luria) was very careful to only speak words of prayer in the Synagogue. Even words of rebuke should not be spoken, least it lead to the discussion of mundane matters. (Magen Avraham Subsection 3).
Orach Chaim.151.2
We do not eat and we do not drink in them, even a temporary (short) consumption. We do not get dressed in them and we do not travel through them. We do not use them to take shelter from the heat when it is hot outside or from the rain when it is raining. Learned ones and their students are allowed to eat in them in urgent situations. Some say that they can eat in a study hall, even if the situation is not urgent, since for most of the day, they will be there to learn anyway. If so [if they would have to leave], this would be a waste of [ time that could be spent learning] Torah when they would have to step out of there to eat. However, to take shelter there from the rain or from the heat or cold is still prohibited, even for a learned person. Rather, he would have to learn there, or in a Synagogue, he would have to pray there (Magen Avraham subsection 2). There is in the Yerushalmi that a learned person is allowed lodge in a study hall (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And like this it sounds like in Pesachim (Pesachim 100a). At seems that guests can eat in the study hall. However, in truth, the Tosfos write there that this is referring to the rooms next to the Synagogue, see there. (Refer to the Ta"z subsection 1. His words are puzzling. In addition, the Ramban did not write this, just because of a condition, see there.)
Orach Chaim.151.3
And one should not engage in financial calculations inside of a synagogue or beit midrash unless they are calculations that pertain to a mitzvah, such as calculations of a tzedakah fund or for redeeming captives etc. And there should be no eulogizing in a synagogue unless it is a eulogy for a great person. Or, if the eulogy is relevant for an influential resident of the city such that many residents fo the city will gather to pay tribute to the deceased and the entire community will gather in honor of the bereaved relative...
Orach Chaim.151.4
And what should one do if one needs to enter into a synagogue or beit midrash, for example to call someone from there etc.? One should enter and then recite a few words of scripture or some halakhah and only then call to one's friend so that it does not appear as though one entered the sacred space for his own mundane purposes. And if the individual does not know how to recite scripture or learn a halakhah, he can turn to a child and say "read for me the verse that you are studying now." Or, he can wait a few moments in the synagogue or beit midrash for merely sitting there is also considered a mitzvah as it says "happy or those who dwell in your home." And then the person can call to whomever he wishes. And how long should he sit under these circumstances? Enough time to walk from one entryway to another as I wrote above in Siman 90. And one does not have to sit for standing is the same and "yeshiva" which literally means sitting here means being detained and stationary as it says "like the days that you dwelled." But one should have in mind that sitting or standing one is fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling in a synagogue or beit midrash. And it seems to me that in this one one could also enter a synagogue or beit midrash for shelter from the sun or cold or rain. And even if it looks as though one is entering the synagogue for protection from the elements, nonetheless, if one then learns a verse or a halakhah, it will not appear so flagrantly as though one entered because of the rain, sun, or cold.
Orach Chaim.151.5
And one can question the current practice to be lenient about speaking in the synagogue or beit midrash following prayers about all manner of mundane topics to a degree that this behavior seems to be permissible. And it appears to me that they base themselves on the position of Ramban who explains that synagogues in the diaspora are built on condition that even while they are in operation as synagogues they can be used for other needed purposes. And we think mundane conversations are needed. Each individual decides for himself. However, it is certainly forbidden to smoke "bitter leaves" in shul for there is no greater form of light-headedness than this. And it is only permissible for those who spend all day or half the day in the beit midrash studying Torah to smoke since this is like eating for them. But that smoking can only take place in a beit midrash and not a synagogue. And any other person who does not spend all day learning Torah in the beit midrash cannot smoke there and no condition put in place when the beit midrash was built can make this permissible. And so it is appropriate to rebuke those who do.
Orach Chaim.151.6
One should not sleep in a synagogue, even a nap. But it is permissible to do so in a beit midrash for one who learns there. And for the sake of the synagogue itself one can eat or sleep there but one should not bring a mattress into the synagogue. And for this reason one can sleep in the synagogue on the night of Yom Kippur in order to guard the candles so that no bad thing occur. Also those who sleep in the synagogue on Yom Kippur to guard the candles recite many Psalms and songs and praises. It is also permissible to sleep in the synagogue for a mitzvah purpose like in earlier times they would enter the synagogue to intercalculate the year and they would not return to their homes at all and would eat and sleep there. But they ate only simple foods (bread and beans). And when one makes a siyum on a massechet, and certainly if one makes a siyum on something larger, one can eat in the beit midrash since that is a se'udat mitzvah [mitzvah meal]. But to set a large meal there seems not right and one should only do so in a case of great need. And this is specifically the se'udat mitzvah of Torah study and not some other mitzvah like the meal of a bris or pidyon ha-ben or wedding. Those cannot take place in a beit midrash since they have no relevance to a beit midrash.
Orach Chaim.151.7
There are those who say that which we taught concerning the sanctity of batei midrash is only when they are communal, akin to a synagogue. However, if an individual sets aside a space for his own need to learn there, this space is not endowed with the sanctity of a beit midrash. And there is no doubt about this for the beginning of its building was for a generic home. And even now that a room has been dedicated for study, there was no intention to sanctify the room with the sanctity of a beit midrash. And there is no need for an explicit condition to have been articulated at the time of building for in the absence of an alternative the general assumption prevails.
Orach Chaim.168.14
It is said in the Gemara (Brachot 42a) that bread which comes as dessert, one blesses over it "who creates kinds of nourishment" and not "Who brings [bread from the earth]", and what bread which comes as dessert is will be explained shortly. So, [our previous ruling is in effect] specifically when one eats it casually, but when one bases a meal on bread which comes as dessert, one blesses "Who brings [bread from the earth]" and [after eating] the blessing of the meal, and it requires washing of the hands. And if one originally intended to eat a little, and blessed "Who creates many types of nourishment", and then ate much -- one needs to bless the blessing of the meal. And this is in a case where one did not decide at the beginning of eating to eat a lot, and then it happened that one ate a lot, in which case the blessing of "Who brings [forth bread from the earth]" and hand-washing would not be appropriate. And even if, in the middle of one's eating, one changed one's mind and decided to eat a lot, nevertheless when from the time of the decision until the end of the eating there does not remain enough time to 'fix a meal' -- it's not necessary to wash one's hands and to bless "Who brings". But if one changed one's mind and decided to eat a lot at the beginning of one's eating, one does need to wahs one's hands (and this was the intention of the Magen Avraham on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 114).
Orach Chaim.180.1
One should not remove the tablecloth and the bread until after the grace after the meal. And that which is implied in Berakhot (42a), that they would remove the tables before the grace after the meals, is because each one would eat on a small table by himself. So they would remove the tables from in front of those eating, but not from in front of the one reciting grace. But we who eat at one table, we should not remove [the tablecloth] from it until after the grace after the meal (Tosafot and Rosh on Berakhot 42a). And it appears that it is from this reason that there are some places that have the practice to leave the bread and tablecloth in in front of the one reciting the grace - as the Tur has written, see there - in order to do like what was done in their time.
Orach Chaim.180.2
And the reason for the thing is because blessing does not reside upon something empty, as it is found with Elisha and [the] Shuanamite. Since he said to her (II Kings 4:2), "[what] you have at home." And in Sanhedrin 92a: Anyone who does not leave bread on his table will not ever see a sign of blessing. And likewise is it in the Zohar, Yitro (87b), and [these are its words: It is forbidden for a person to recite a blessing over an empty table. For supernal blessing does not reside in an empty place. And likewise is it found in the Zohar, Terumah (157b), see there. And our rabbi, the Beit Yosef (Yosef Karo), wrote (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 180:2), "But he should not bring a whole [loaf of] bread and place on the table. And if he does so, he looks like, 'those who set a table for Luck (Gad),' that the prophet Isaiah mentions (Isaiah 65:11)." But it is only to bring [it] that is forbidden. However if there was a whole bread laying there from before, he does not need to remove it (Taz and Magen Avraham). Hence on Shabbat, when the second Challah of the two breads (lechem mishneh) is laying [on the table], it should not be taken from the table. Yet there will perforce be crumbs left. But if there were no crumbs left on the table, he should bring [them] from another place. And in Job (20:21), It is written, "There is no remnant (sarid) to consume it, hence his fortune will not prosper." So it is from here that our Sages, may their memory be blessed, expounded to leave over bread on the table. As it is implied from this itself that the remnant is crumbs, as that is [the meaning of] the expression, "remnant."
Orach Chaim.194.1
1. Three people who ate together and forgot to perform zimun (the invitation to communal Grace after Meals), and each recited birkat hamazon individually, have forfeited the opportunity to recite zimun, since it cannot be done retroactively—it must precede the individual blessings, not follow them, and once missed, it is considered a distortion that cannot be corrected. The same applies if two of them have already recited birkat hamazon, but if only one has done so, the other two may still perform zimun with him, because he was also obligated and the majority of the group has not yet recited, so it is considered to be in proper sequence. He has not fulfilled the mitzvah of zimun, since it cannot be done after the fact, and although one might ask how he can say “Blessed is He from Whose food we have eaten” if he already recited a blessing, the answer is that since he did not do so properly—without zimun—it is no better than someone who ate a mere vegetable leaf, and therefore even according to the opinion that such a person cannot be counted for zimun, this case is better, as he did not fulfill his obligation properly. This seems to be the reasoning, and what the Tur wrote—that it is no worse than a vegetable leaf—is not a justification for zimun, as the Magen Avraham explains, but rather a justification for saying “from Whose food we have eaten,” which is clearly the Tur’s intent, and accordingly the reasoning behind the ruling is sound. The Vilna Gaon struggled with this issue, but based on this explanation, the reasoning is clear. It was already explained in the previous section that when one person performs zimun with others who have not yet recited birkat hamazon, he causes the others to lose the mitzvah of zimun, and it is forbidden to do so. The Rif omits this ruling, and the reason for his omission is unknown.
Orach Chaim.194.2
2. When three people ate together and one of them went out to the marketplace before reciting birkat hamazon, they call him and inform him that they wish to perform zimun, so that he may direct his intention and join with them, answering the blessing of zimun. In this way they fulfill their obligation, and even if he does not sit with them at the table but merely stands at the doorway, they are still considered to have fulfilled zimun, and he too fulfills his obligation. This applies in the case of three. However, when there are ten, since the name of God must be mentioned in the zimun, it is not proper etiquette for him not to sit at the table, and he is required to sit with them until the conclusion of the zimun. This will be explained further in Siman 200.
Orach Chaim.194.3
3. It is well known that in birkat hamazon either everyone recites together with the leader, as is our custom, or the leader recites and the others listen and answer “Amen,” as explained earlier. When two of the three are unlearned, the leader alone recites all the blessings and they respond “Amen.” But if all three are unlearned and none knows the entire birkat hamazon, our Sages taught (Berakhot 46a according to the Rif) that if three ate together and one knows the first blessing, another the second, and another the third, they are obligated in zimun, and each recites the blessing he knows while the others answer “Amen.” The same applies to the second and third blessings. Even if none of them knows the blessing of HaTov veHaMetiv, this does not prevent them from fulfilling their obligation, since that blessing is rabbinic. However, they may not divide a single blessing in half, with one reciting the first part and another the second, for blessings cannot be split in two. It is obvious as well that they must know the text of the zimun itself. Likewise, when two ate together, as explained earlier, the one who knows recites and the other fulfills his obligation by listening; if one knows the first two blessings and the other knows the third, the first recites the first two and the second recites the third, and so too in similar cases. This ruling is agreed upon by all the halachic authorities.
Orach Chaim.194.4
4. A question arises: from this it seems that if none of the group knows even one of the three blessings of birkat hamazon, the obligation of zimun is nullified. But why should they not perform zimun on whatever blessing they do know? The answer is that indeed they are obligated to recite whichever blessing they know, but the mitzvah of zimun exists only when there are three blessings. Since we derive both zimun and the three blessings from the verse “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless” (Deuteronomy 8:10), it follows that when there are three blessings there is zimun, and when there are not, there is no zimun. From this it is proven that all three blessings are of Torah origin, for otherwise why would they prevent zimun? After all, the blessing of HaTov veHaMetiv is rabbinic and does not prevent fulfillment. (So writes the Magen Avraham §3. See also what he cites from the Ramban, who holds that blessings do not invalidate one another, and he challenges him from here. But according to what I have explained, this is not a challenge, for here it applies only to the matter of zimun. Examine carefully and you will find it straightforward.
Orach Chaim.220.8
Chaza"l said (Shabbat 11a) that a fast is good for nullification of a bad dream like fire to tinder, and that applies specifically on the day of the dream (even Shabbat!), and it will be explained in chapter 488 see there. And there it will be explained that they say that regarding 3 dreams one fasts on Shabbat: one who sees a sefer Torah that is burnt or tefillin which are burnt; or Yom Kippur at the time of Ne'ilah; or who sees the beams of their house or their teeth that fall out, see there. And it's proper not to fast on Shabbat (Magen Avraham there, 167), and even during the week one shouldn't do this habitually, because it was only said about a pure person without filling of the stomach, and like this person there is not among them at all. And in Midrash Kohelet they bring that they intepreted for a woman who saw in a dream that the beams of her house fell, and they said to her "you will birth a son", and so happened to her see there, and this is an image of the child who falls from her body. And so we are accustomed to intepret the dream positively and so is our duty and so is appropriate for us, and all dreams follow their interpretation as it is written.
Orach Chaim.230.1
It is intellectually understood that the notion of prayer is only relevant to the future and not the past, for how could it have an effect on the past? Only thanksgiving is relevant to the past- to give praise to Him, may He be blessed, for the good that He did for him. Regarding the future, the opposite is the case- for praise is only relevant for that which already transpired, and prayer is relevant to the future for one is asking God to do something for him....
Orach Chaim.230.2
Therefore, one who enters a city and hears the sound of shouting due to some sort of calamity that occurred in it and says, "may it be [God's] will that [that shouting] is not from within my house", has uttered a vain prayer, for this prayer is regarding the past and whatever has happened has already happened. But he can say, "I trust that it is not from my house" if he is wholly righteous. This is akin to the story of Hillel the Elder, regarding whom it is said: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord (Berachot 60a). The matter can be explicated in two ways: (1) in its simple rendering- that he is not afraid that it was coming from his house or (2) because he had accustomed his household to accept everything with joy, both the good and its opposite. Therefore, even if, God forbid, some calamity had taken place, they would not scream, but would rather accept it with love and silence. ...
Orach Chaim.230.3
So too, if one's wife is pregnant and he wants a male child, he can prayer up until 40 days: 'May it be [God's] will that my wife will give birth to a son', since up until 40 days [the fetus] is merely water [viz. not formed]. But after 40 days, when the form has been solidified, praying 'May it be [God's] will that my wife will give birth to a son' would be a vain prayer, for what has happened has already happened, and it cannot be changed. Even though we find that Dinah switched from a male to female, this was within 40 days, and even if it were after 40 days, we do not mention [viz. draw conclusions from] miracles (ibid.), and the matters related to our holy forefathers were all miraculous.
Orach Chaim.230.4
One who enters a town says: 'may it be Your will, Hashem our God and God of our forefathers, that you allow me to enter this town in peace'; this is a prayer regarding the future. When he has entered in peace he says: 'thank You Hashem, my God, for allowing me to enter this town in peace'; this is thanksgiving for the past. So too when he is leaving, he says: 'may it be Your will..that you take me out of this town in peace'. When he has left, he says: 'thank You...for allowing me to leave this town in peace; just as you have allowed me to leave in peace, so too should You guide me in peace, etc.'. This is the wayfarer's prayer, as is explained in section 110, see there. Maimonides wrote in his commentary to the Mishnah that this is not a prayer or a blessing, rather it is merely a request. Therefore, we are no longer accustomed to saying this, since Rashi explained that [the reason it is said is] due to the criminal activity in the towns, and in our times this is no longer relevant. Nonetheless, it is proper to say for one who is careful regarding the words of the Sages, especially since this is not a blessing such that one would be concerned about a blessing in vain.
Orach Chaim.230.5
...One who goes in to measure his grain should say: 'may it be Your will, Hashem my God, that you send blessing for my stalks', since this is a blessing regarding the future. When he has begun measuring, he says: 'blessed is He who sends his blessing for my stalks', since he trusts that there will be blessing. One who has measured and then blesses has uttered a vain prayer, since blessing is only found for something that cannot be seen, so that it will not seem as though it is really going against nature, since most miracles are hidden ones. One who enters a bathhouse (their bathhouses had fires under them and were a constant danger) should say: 'may it be Your will, Hashem My God, that you allow me to enter in peace and leave in peace, and that you save me from this fire, and similarly in the future'. When he has exited peacefully, he should say: 'Thank You Hashem, My God, for saving me from this fire'. We are no longer accustomed to this, since the fire is now to the side and is not dangerous (Bach, Taz, Magen Avraham). This is explicit in the Palestinian Talmud in the 10th chapter of Berachot. One who lets blood should say: 'May it be Your will..that this matter will be advantageous to my health, since you are a free doctor'. After you let blood, say: 'Blessed is the healer of the sick'. Some say to say it with God's name and kingship (Taz, #3 and Maimonides, as well as the Beit Yosef in the name of the Semag). It is proper to say before every healing: 'May it be Your will, Hashem My God, that this will be healing for me'. This is how the punctilious act. One should accustom himself to say: 'All that the Merciful One does is for good'. The principle is that one should always prayer for the future and beseech for mercy before Him, may He be blessed, and he should give thanksgiving for the past, thanking and praising according to his capacity. The more praise one accords to God, the better. This is like it says in the verse: 'it is good to praise God, and to sing your exalted name'.
Orach Chaim.242.1
The Holy Sabbath is the great sign between the Holy Blessed One and God's people, Israel, as it says "for it is a sign between me and you so that you know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you." That is to say that even though Shabbat is a commemoration of creation, "for in six days did the Lord make Heaven and Earth and on the seventh day it was Shabbat and He rested" and therefore "and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it for on it He rested" etc. as is written regarding creation. And if that is so, it is relevant for all of God's creations. And Shabbat is not comparable to the holidays, which are a commemoration of the exodus from Egypt and the other nations have no relevance or connection to them for the other nations did not leave Egypt! However, everyone was created as a result of creation. And nonetheless, the Holy Blessed One did not give the sanctity of Shabbat to anyone other than Israel. And this is the meaning of "to know that I am the Lord who makes you holy" that is to say that you are holy alongside me, as it says, "you shall be holy [for I...am holy]" and therefore I have given the sanctity of Shabbat to you. For Shabbat and Israel are the two end purposes of creation. (And this is the meaning of the line from the siddur "and he has not given Shabbat to the nations of the earth nor apportioned it..." That is to say: even though they apparently have a relevant connection to Shabbat, [God did not give Shabbat to them]. And this is what is meant at the opening chapter of Massechet Shabbat, "I have a special gift in my storehouse and its name is Shabbat, go and tell Israel etc." That is to say, even though it could have been given to all creation.
Orach Chaim.242.2
The holiness of Shabbat is higher than all other holiness, and its blessings are above all other blessings. Therefore, it was sanctified and blessed from the beginning of creation, as it says, "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." And this is the source of blessing to all the other days of the week. Therefore, Israel was commanded regarding Shabbat in seven different parshiot in the Torah, in Beshalach, Yitro, Mishpatim, Ki Tissa, Vayakhel, Emor, Va'Ethanan, to show that all seven days of the week are dependent on Shabbat. Therefore, we mention Shabbat every day when we say in the Song of the Day "First Day towards Shabbat," "Second Day towards Shabbat" and so with them all.
Orach Chaim.242.3
Shabbat is the essential point of faith in the Holy Blessed One who created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. And anyone who does not observe Shabbat has no faith. Therefore, the Sages, throughout the Talmud compare one who violates Shabbat to one who worships idols. And all who violate Shabbat it is as if they reject the entire Torah. Therefore, immediately after the Jews left Egypt, we were commanded concerning Shabbat in Parashat Beshalach - which was before the giving of the Torah because the exodus from Egypt is testimony of God's supervision over the world to reward those who do good and the opposite to those who commit evil like the Egyptians and thoe like them. And it is evidence of God's ability to change nature like the plagues of Egypt and the splitting of the Sea and the descent of the mannah and the quail and the well. And if one does not admit that the Holy Blessed One created the world, then he denies all these things. Therefore, he gave them all Shabbat immediately after they left Egypt. And so too our Sages said that Shabbat and the civil law were commanded at Marah which was the first stop after the splitting of the Sea, as is said in the Torah. And we see, regarding that first Shabbat, that some people desecrated Shabbat and went to collect mannah, and the Holy Blessed One said, "For how long will you refuse to keep my mitzvot and my Torah." Here it is explicit that Shabbat is a general stand in for Torah and Mitzvot. (And so too at the end of Parashat Ki Tissa it says "keep the holiday of matzot" and then after it says "six days you shall work and on the seventh day you shall rest" for it is more common and sacred. Rather it tells us that to celebrate the holiday of matzah one needs to observe Shabbat for if there is no Shabbat there is no Pesach and no Torah).
Orach Chaim.242.4
And the prophets, when they rebuked Israel for violating the Torah, specifically rebuked them for the desecration of the Sabbaths themselves. It says: "Blessed is the man who does this... who keeps the Sabbath from desecrating it and keeps his hand from doing any evil" (Isaiah 56:2) — meaning, the merit of observing the Sabbath will cause him not to commit any evil. And furthermore, it says: "Everyone who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it and who holds fast to My covenant" — meaning, the covenant of the Torah. Thus, it is explicitly stated that one who desecrates the Sabbath is considered to be breaking the covenant of the Torah.
Orach Chaim.242.8
The Laws of Shabbat are vast and deep. And our rabbis, the Tur and Shulhan Arukh, for all of their length, wrote nothing more than what is forbidden and what is permitted, but they did not write the essence of the primary categories of forbidden labor (avot melachot) and their derivatives (toladot) and the violations of Shabbat by Torah law (d'oraita) and rabbinic law (d'rabbanan) and the general root principles of the categories of forbidden labor on Shabbat. And Rambam did explain everything. And for the sake of completing this holy endeavor, it was our intention as well to explain a little bit of this and the ways in which Rambam differs from our teachers Rashi, Tosafot, and other Rishonim as will be explained with God's help.
Orach Chaim.242.9
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.
Orach Chaim.242.10
At the beginning of Parashat Vayakhel (Exodus 35:1) it is written, "And Moshe gathered etc. these are the things that the Lord commanded you to do: six days you shall do your melakhah and the seventh day should be holy to you etc." And the explanation is that God commanded them concerning the construction of the Mishkan and on Shabbat it was forbidden to do any of the constructive labors for the mishkan as is explained in the Midrash Mechilta. And from here we learn the tradition of the Sages to learn the general principles and great ideas of the labors of Shabbat. for from the juxtaposition of the matter of Shabbat and the construction of the Mishkan we learn that the forbidden labors of Shabbat were labors done in constructing the Mishkan. And so our Sages taught (Shabbat 49b): One is not liable other than for performing a labor of a variety that was done in the Mishkan. They sowed, you shall not sow. And sowing was done for the mishkan in order to plant ingredients needed for fabric dyes (according to Rashi). They reaped, you shall not reap etc. And from here we learned the 39 central categories of labor that were important for the mishkan (see the beginning of Bava Kama). and even though some of the melakhot are similar to each other such as winnowing, sorting, and sifting, for all of them are the removal of food from waste but the separating is done differently. Winnowing is by means of the wind and sorting is by hand and sifting is with a sieve. Nonetheless, since they were all distinct and important tasks in the Mishkan, they are all called Avot Melakhot (primal paradigmatic categories), and the other forms of labor that are comparable to the paradigms are called derivatives (toladot). (See Shabbat 73b).
Orach Chaim.242.11
And if you will ask: what practical difference (nafka minah) does it make if something is an "av" or a "toladah" - a paradigmatic Shabbat violation or a deriviative? For one is liable for stoning, karet, or a sin offering if done accidentally for any violation. But there is a large practical difference. For if one does two forms of labor if they they are one "av" and a "toladah" of that same "av" then one is only liable one sin offering. But if they each have their own "av" or if one is a "toladah" of a different av, then one is liable for two sin offerings. And the Rambam writes this all in Chapter 7, halakhah 7 see there. And according to the opinions of our rabbis the Tosafot (Shabbat 73b) there is a rationale that there would be a difference when it came to the warning. For the warning needs to be for a "toladah" for the sake of its "av." And if so, there is a significant practical distinction between an "av" and its "toladah" and this is the implication of the Talmud too. However, the Tosafot themselves raise doubts about this. And suggest the possibility that one could be liable even if one was warned for a "toladah." But this is obvious for if one was warned regarding one "toladah" for a different "toladah" even if they both have the same "av" that wojuld not count as warning unless the warning was for the specific "toladah" that the person was about to do or the "av" associated with that "toladah." And for this reason to carify what counts as an "av" and what counts as a "toladah."
Orach Chaim.242.41
(starting at ועכשיו) We gather in shul and we say five chapters of psalms from Lechu Neranena (Ch. 95) until Hashem malach yirgezu amim (Ch. 99) because they are about the future redemptive days. Therefore (like Radak says), a person says to his friend “Let us sing to Hashem,” and then [the next chapter we sing] “Hashem reigns,” that is to say that we’ll fulfill that which is written (Zecharia 14:9) “On that day Hashem will be One and His Name will be One.” For Shabbat is a hint to this time, to “The Day that is Entirely Shabbat,” and then we’ll sing a new song (Ch. 96) to Hashem. For all songs are in the feminine, and the song of the future [redemption] will be in the masculine, like the Midrash explain. Therefore we say these chapters.
Orach Chaim.245.1
1. In the previous sections it was explained that under a contract-based arrangement (kabbalanut), it is permitted for a Jew to allow a non-Jew to work on Shabbat, because in such a case the non-Jew acts on his own initiative and not as the Jew’s agent—except in the case of work connected to the ground, as explained there—and this is specifically when the business belongs solely to the Jew. But if a Jew and a non-Jew jointly own a business, then such an arrangement is forbidden. And do not be surprised—how could it be worse just because the non-Jew has a share in the business? How can that be? The reasoning is as follows: when the business belongs solely to the Jew and he hires the non-Jew on a contract basis, the non-Jew is not considered his agent but works on his own behalf, as explained there. The fact that the Jew profits from it is incidental, as previously discussed. But when two partners jointly own a business, the responsibility to work falls on both of them, and if the non-Jew works alone on Shabbat, it is certain that he will expect the Jew to work alone on a weekday in exchange for the Shabbat he worked. This is essentially like saying: “You work for me on Shabbat and I’ll work for you on Sunday,” which makes him the Jew’s agent in full. There are detailed laws about this, which will be explained with G-d’s help. And there is no difference whether the business is owned outright by them or if they rented it from someone else to operate jointly—either way, they are partners. See section 7.
Orach Chaim.253.1
1. It has already been explained at the beginning of the previous section that it is permitted to begin a task on Friday afternoon even though the task will be completed on Shabbat; therefore, a person may place a pot with food on the fire before Shabbat near nightfall, or meat in the oven or on coals, and they will continue cooking during Shabbat. However, in these matters the Sages forbade certain practices, due to a decree lest one stir the coals on Shabbat in order to hasten the cooking, since stirring the coals takes but a moment and in his eagerness to eat he might forget that it is Shabbat and stir the coals, thereby transgressing a Torah prohibition, for by stirring the cooking is accelerated and thus he would be cooking on Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages established protective measures regarding this, as will be explained with God’s help.
Orach Chaim.253.2
2. Since there is a dispute among the authorities regarding this matter, and their manner of cooking was different from ours, it is necessary first to explain their method of cooking. Their ovens were not opened from the side as ours are, nor were they as large as our ovens. They had three types of ovens: kirah, kupach, and tanur. Generally, these were not affixed to the ground, and their openings were at the top. They would stoke the fire at the bottom, and the flames rose upward, while the pot was placed on the rim of the kirah, kupach, or tanur, so that the pot was suspended over the hollow space. The kirah was made to hold two pots, being long and short, equal at the top and bottom. The kupach was also equal at the top and bottom, but smaller than the kirah, holding only one pot; and since it was not long, it retained heat more than the kirah. The tanur likewise held one pot, but it was wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, and therefore retained heat far more than the kupach. In addition, they would stoke the tanur more intensely than the kirah. (See Rashi, Bava Batra 20a, s.v. “u’v’kirah.” There is difficulty with the Tur, Choshen Mishpat beginning of Siman 155, who cites the Rashbam that the kirah opened from the side. Likewise, the Nimukei Yosef there brings this from the Yerushalmi, which says the kirah was made like a dovecote. I am puzzled, for the meaning seems to be that it was equal at the top and bottom like a dovecote, unlike the tanur which was narrower at the top.)

Sefaria Community Translation. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.sefaria.org Licence: CC0. Source.