Arukh HaShulchan

Sefaria · Halakhah · 221 sections

Orach Chaim.253.3
3. Their fuel consisted either of straw and stubble gathered from the field, which produced a very weak fire and yielded few coals, or of gefet—the waste product of olives or sesame seeds. Olive waste produced a very strong fire with many coals, and sesame waste, though not as strong as olive, was still stronger than straw and stubble. Likewise, wood produced a strong fire with abundant coals. They also used animal dung as fuel. The Jerusalem Talmud at the beginning of the tractate Kirah states that dung from small animals is like gefet and wood, while dung from large animals is like straw and stubble. Interestingly, Rambam in Chapter 3 writes the opposite, as we will cite his words, and it must be said that his version of the Jerusalem Talmud differed
Orach Chaim.253.4
Would you like me to also smooth the phrasing further into more natural English prose (less literal, more like a scholarly explanation), or do you prefer to keep it close to the original wording?
Orach Chaim.263.1
The Rambam wrote, "Lighting Shabbos candles is not (some ordinary) optional act, where you may or may not light them according to your desire. And (to think) it is not a mitzvah and where you are you not required to chase after it... rather it is an obligation for both men and women to have in their homes a light for Shabbos. Even if you do not have your own food to eat, you must go door to door begging for oil and kindle the light because this (light) is included in "Shabbos Pleasure" (the mitzveh to have Oneg Shabbos). And one must say the blessing before the kindling: Blessed are you Hashem our God King of the Universe Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to kindle a light for Shabbos. One recites this blessing just like we do for all Rabbinical requirements." And even though we do not recite a blessing on (each and ) every matter relating to "Shabbos Pleasure" (oneg Shabbos), nevertheless, the kindling of the light was a Rabbinical ordinance in itself, as it is said, "'The kindling of a light for Shabbos in an obligation.' Rashi explains the reason is 'Honoring Shabbos' (Kavod Shabbos) since you can only hold an important feast in a well lit place." So according to Rashi, (the reason we light a Shabbos candle) is not because of "Shabbos Pleasure" (Oneg Shabbos) but rather due to "Honoring Shabbos" (Kavod Shabbos).
Orach Chaim.426.1
It's taught in Sanhedrin 42a: "And Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The term “this” is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them, since in the blessing of the moon there is an aspect of greeting the Divine Presence. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing, in honor of the Divine Presence." Behond it's clear that sanctification of the moon is a great and terrible matter like greeting the Shechina. And certainly there are great and terrible secrets regarding it, as the wise receivers of tradition have elaborated: the matter of the moon's diminishing and the matter of the First Man's sin, they touch one another. In the future, when the First Man's sin is rectified - then the diminishing of the moon will also be rectified. And regarding that moment it is said "And the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun" (Isaiah 30:26).
Orach Chaim.426.2
And according to the plain meaning, the reason that we bless the moon more than the stars/planets, although it's smaller than almost all the other planets (excepting Mercury), is because it's closer to the Earth than all the other stars/planets; it's only about 43,000 parasangs away. The moon inspires in us a feeling of the greatness of the Holy Blessed One, since every night its path is perceived, and it orbits the earth every month. For this reason it's called "yareach" [ירח], as it is written "[God] made a moon [ירח] to mark the seasons" (Psalms 104:19) -- since it orbits the earth in every moon of days, and its waxing and waning are perceptible. And Israel, who count [days] by the moon, are compared to the moon; just as the moon has no light of its own, and is illuminated by the sun's light, so too Israel have no light other than the Light of the Holy Blessed One, which shines for us from the midst of the Holy Torah, as it is written "A sun and a shield is Lord God" (Psalms 84:12). And just as the moon darkens and lightens, so too is Israel; just as we say in the blessing "and to the moon They said, 'renew yourself!' - a crown of glory to the womb-borne, for they are destined to renew themselves like it." And just as the moon exists even in the days of its diminishment [waning], when it seems dark on Earth -- it however is light on its other face from above, as is known; so too Israel. And for all of these reasons, Israel accepted this commandment with joy.
Orach Chaim.426.3
Therefore, the one who sees the moon in her renewal blesses "Blessed... is the One with Whose word They created shechakim ..." - and the firmament is here called shechakim as we say in Chagiga 12b: "[there are seven firmaments, including] shechakim, since there millstones stand and grind out manna for the righteous" [the word for grind and shechakim are similar]. Therefore Rav Yehuda, who said this statement about blessing of the moon in Sanhedrin 42a, he thinks in Chagiga 12b that there are only two firmaments, "heavens" and "the utmost heavens". And it's possible that the two are firmament and the shechakim, and his intent was: that although it's obvious that there are seven firmaments, they fall into two categories. For in the Tana"ch we find only these two names for the firmaments: firmament [רקיע] and shechakim [שחקים], and these are "heavens" [שמים] and "the utmost heavens" [שמי השמים]. And this is why it says "at Their word They created shechakim, and with the breath of Their Mouth all their hosts" -- since so says David, "at the word of God the heavens were made, and with the breath of Their Mouth all their hosts" (Psalms 33:6). And it says "A law and a time They gave to them, that they should not change their courses". The "time" is all the days if the world, six thousand years. "Being glad and rejoicing to do the will of their Creator", as it is written "[the sun] rejoices like a hero about to run a race" (Psalms 19:6). And it uses the language of "gladness and joy", like the language designated for Yisrael, as it says "Gladness and joy shall abide there, Thanksgiving and the sound of music" (Isaiah 51:3). "Doers of truth whose doings are true" -- this is the text of Rash"i, and it refers to the sun and the moon whose courses do not change. And the Tosfot render it "Doer of truth whose doings are true" and referring to the Holy Blessed One, since with truth and justice did They diminish the moon. "And to the moon They said to renew itself..." -- this is the world to come, which will be entirely renewed. And as for now, it renews itself every month. And this is a sign for Israel, who are "those borne in the womb", since so said the prophet "[the people of Israel] who are carried from the womb" (Isaiah 46:3). And one concludes the blessing "Blessed... is the One Who renews months." [מחדש חודשים]
Orach Chaim.426.4
And after this we are accustomed to say "Blessed is the One Who formed you" -- as a sign for Ya'akov. And some begin "Blessed is the One Who made you", due to the order of the words. And dance three times opposite it with toes [i.e. jump], and say "Just as I... Fall...", and [the latter formula] backwards three times [each]. And we are accustomed to say "David, King of Israel, lives and endures", and the intent is the descendants of David. For the kingship of the house of David is compared to the moon, as it is written in Psalms (89:37-8) "His line continues forever... as the moon established forever." As if to say -- even though it gets dark, it will get light again. And after that we say each to the other "Peace be upon you..." "The voice of my beloved..." "My beloved is similar..." "A song of ascents..." "Praise God from Their Sanctuary..." "It is taught in the house of Rabbi Yishmael, if..." and "May it be Your will", as it is written in prayerbooks. And our teacher the Rem"a [Rabbi Moshe Isserles] writes: "we are accustomed to say "David..." for his kingship is compared to the moon, and is destined to renew itself like one. And the community of Israel will return to cleave unto the Holy Blessed One and their example is the moon which renews itself with the sun, as it says "the sun and the shield of God..." (Psalms 84:12). And therefore we do joys [?] and dances at the sanctification of the moon: an example of the joy of a wedding." This is the end of the Rem"a's language. And the primary portion is the blessing, and [the lack of it] prevents [it working], and the other things, if one didn't say them -- it's not prevented. (And one shakes the folds of one's clothes.)
Orach Chaim.426.5
Sanctification of the moon is only during entire night, and when the moon is shining and we benefit from its light. And not before the night; we need the moonlight's shining to be recognised on the land, so it casts a shadow. And in the time of the blessing one straightens [stretches?] one's legs and fixes one's eyes on the moon, and makes the blessing standing. And when it's written to fix one's eyes on the moon to gaze on it, this is only before the blessing. But during the blessing one lowers one's eyes and does not look at it. And so we are accustomed according to kabbalah [accepted tradition].
Orach Chaim.426.9
If the moon is not visible until the last night [on which one can bless it] and the people are standing in prayer and the moon becomes visible, and after prayer it's clear that the moon will no longer be visible and the opportunity will be lost: If they are in Shema and its blessings - they need to interrupt, even in the middle of a section. And if they are able to finish a section, that's excellent! And if the same thing happens -- they need to interrupt the reading of the Scroll of Esther (Sha'arei Teshuva in the name of the Noda biYehuda). But this is an unlikely occurence, and I shall not elaborate on it.
Orach Chaim.430.1
The Shabbat that is before Pesach is called "Shabbat HaGadol" or the "great Shabbat" because of the great miracle that occurred on that day. For the original Paschal lamb of Egypt was taken on the tenth of Nisan and the Pesach when they left Egypt was a Thursday (Tractate Shabbat 87a). It follows that the Shabbat prior to leaving Egypt was the tenth of the month and each individual took a lamb for his paschal offering and tied it to the frame of his bed. And when the Egyptians asked, "what is this?" They answered and said that the Holy Blessed One has commanded that we slaughter that animal. And the Egyptians worshipped sheep and yet they were stunned and silent. And furthermore, Israel informed that that in the future the Holy Blessed One would kill their first born. And the first born of Egypt waged a war with Pharaoh and their fathers and this is what is meant by "afflicting Egypt with its first born" as is explained in the Midrash. And on account of this miracle, we call it "Shabbat HaGadol."
Orach Chaim.430.2
And lest you say, if the above is true, why observe Shabbat HaGadol on Shabbat rather than on the 10th of Nissan regardless of which day of the week it occurs? And one answer is that on the 10th of Nissan Miriam died and so it was not desirable to make the commemoration dependent on the calendar date such that the anniversary of her death should be a day of celebration. Furthemore, the tenth of Nisan is the day that they crossed the Jordan River, as it says in the Book of Joshua, and I would have thought that Shabbat HaGadol was established on Shabbat to set it apart from crossing the Jordan River. For this reason Shabbat HaGadol was established on Shabbat for the Jordan was not crossed on Shabbat. And lest you ask, who cares if people are confused and ascribe Shabbat HaGadol to crossing the Jordan? The answer is that these days are about the miracles of Egypt which were greater than the miracles of crossing the Jordan.
Orach Chaim.431.14
Additonally, one cannot say that the Torah permitted [with the word "tashbisu" (Ex. 12:15)] *only* bitul but not searching [and destroying], because that would be completely illogical. Because in all instances where benefit is prohibited, for example, the Asheira tree, or [other items of] idolatry, the Torah instructs us only to search [and destroy] as it is written "you shall definitely destroy..." (Deut. 12:2). Rather, the Torah certainly is being lenient in the case of chometz, such that bitul [on its own] is sufficient, but obviously, searching [and destroying] are also included in "tashbisu". [Therefore,] one who does not wish to use bitul, or is unable to concentrate sufficiently, can search in all the places into which chometz was brought, and destroy it, either by burning it, or by one of the other methods which will, with Heaven's help, be explained. And after he searched all those places, even if chometz was subsequently found, he has not transgressed a Torah prohibition, because the Torah relies on presumptions. And since he did all that was required, he is simply a victim of circumstances. Thus, on the Torah level, one may use either of two approaches, either searching [and destroying] or bitul, and he will have fulfilled his obligation.
Orach Chaim.470.3
There is someone who says that even a female firstborn should fast. For behold they were also certainly killed in the plague of the first born in Egypt. And the proof is that it says in the Midrash that Batyah the daughter of Pharaoh was saved in the merit of Moshe. Hence the plague of the first born was also with the females. Nevertheless, this is not the custom, based on the reason that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not command to sanctify them, but rather only the [first born] males. And one who comes after a miscarriage needs to fast, since he is the first born for the inheritance. And likewise first born priests (Kohanim) and Levites need to fast, even though they are not redeemed with the five coins, since they are no worse than the first born of [only] the father (who is also not redeemed but nevertheless fasts). And if there are ten first born [praying together], there is someone who says that the prayer leader should say, anenei (an additional prayer said on a public fast day). But it is not fit to do this. For if so, it is a like public fast, and that is forbidden in Nissan. Rather only the individual [fasting] says, anenei in [the blessing of] shomea tefillah. And we do not read, "Vayechal" (the reading for a public fast).
Orach Chaim.473.21
After reciting Halachma Anya the matzah is removed from the table. This is because of their custom [in ancient times] they had small tables and they would remove the tables. And nowadays we cover the matzah with a cloth and that is in place of removing the table. And this practice too is so that the young children will ask "why are we removing the table, we have not eaten yet?" And immediately after this we pour the second cup so that the child will say, "why have we poured a second cup, we have not eaten yet?" And nowadays we do not have the practice of asking that question and instead we ask "Mah Nishtanah." And the theme of Mah Nishtanah is along the lines of "How great are your works, O Lord" or "how goodly are your tents, Jacob" in the manner of excited surprise. And so too here we are surprised, "how great are all the differences about this night." And in the Mishnah there is a question about the roasted Korban Pesach and no question about reclining since they always ate meals while reclining and nowadays there is no relevance to a question about the roasted korban pesach and we do have a question about reclining because we do not typically eat reclining. And if the son does not have the capacity to ask, the father should teach him. And if he has no son, the daughter should ask. And if there is no daughter, his wife should ask, or someone else at the table should ask. For the Torah was insistent that the matter of retelling the exodus from Egypt on this night should be by means of question and answer. And if there is nobody else at the meal to ask, he should ask himself. And when he asks he does not need to recite the Mah Nishtanah but can begin with Avadim Hayinu (we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt...). [And do not say "this night we only eat marror" rather say "this night we eat marror."]
Orach Chaim.473.22
And when the questioner finishes "Mah Nishtanah" the matzah is uncovered and we begin by saying "Avadim Hayinu - We were slaves" in a loud voice and in excitement and with great joy and gladness. And the essense of saying the hagadah is that by means of the exodus from Egypt we become subjects for ever and for all generations to God and to God's Torah, and we are now God's servants. And this is fully logical since a free person cannot be acquired as a slave against his will. However, someone who was already a slave to another can be acquired by someone else without the consent of the slave and can be acquired against his will as is explained in Yoreh Deah 267. And now, on account that we were slaves to PHaraoh and the Holy Blessed One redeemed us from his hand, therefore, even against our will we are God's servants. And this is the meaning of the verse, "For the children of Israel are servants to me for I took them out of the Land of Egypt." Meaning, the children of Israel are servants to me against their will since I took them from Egypt where they were slaves. And therefore in each generation each person is obligated to see him and herself as though he or she had just left Egypt and had been acquired by the Holy Blessed One as a servant forever. And there is no right to throw off the yoke of Torah from one's neck. And there is proof of this in the verse "on account of this God did for me" which applies from generation to generation. And this is why one who wishes to be stubborn and claim that it only applies to the first generation that leaves Egypt, like the question asked by the Wicked Son who says "what does this mean to you?" That is to say "but you did not leave Egypt." And to this a proof is provided when the Torah says "and we were taken out from there" and concludes "to give us the land." After all, didn't every individual who left Egypt die in the desert? Rather, it must mean that it refers to each generation. (And this is what Rava says in the Gemara 117b "and you should say and he took us from there" and pay careful attention adn it will become clear).
Orach Chaim.475.5
There are those who were exacting to ask: Why is a Kezayit required for the piece representing the blessing of "Hamotzi"? It makes sense for the piece representing the "Eating of Matzah"—as its commandment is specifically a Kezayit, for "eating" is not defined as less than a Kezayit. But regarding the "Hamotzi" piece: is it so that for every blessing of "Hamotzi" throughout the year one must eat a Kezayit? (This is the question of the Bach). Indeed, in Siman 210, it is explained that one does not need a Kezayit for a standard blessing. However, in truth, it is not a difficulty at all. For does one not technically fulfill the Torah obligation of Matzah with whatever Matzah one eats first? It is only we [the Sages], for the sake of beautifying the mitzvah (Hiddur), who say: "This piece is for Hamotzi and this piece is for the obligation of eating Matzah." If so, it follows that with the first eating, one is fulfilling the [Torah] obligation, and therefore one must eat a Kezayit. Then, when he eats the second piece with the specific intent for the "Obligation of Matzah," he is forced to eat a Kezayit from it as well, according to his intent and the enactment of our Sages. Consequently, it follows that he requires two Kezayits. (The Turei Zahav labored over this, but according to what I have written, it works out simply.) Regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef [Rav Yosef Karo], wrote to dip the Matzah in salt: our teacher the Rem'a wrote that the custom is not to dip them in salt on the first night, for clean/pure bread does not require salt. [End of his quote. This does not mean strictly the "first night," for the same law applies to the second night (Chok Yaakov). Rather, his intent was the "Obligation of Matzah" that occurs on the first night, which for us [in the Diaspora] includes both nights due to the doubt of the day (Sefika D'Yoma). The reason they did not practice dipping in salt—even though we usually dip even clean bread in salt—is because of "Love of the Mitzvah" (Chibuv Mitzvah), as recorded by the Maharil. That is to say: we cherish the commandment of Matzah so much that we do not wish to mix any other flavor with it. The Levush wrote the reason is because it is "Bread of Affliction" (Lechem Oni). But I do not know: does a poor person eat without salt? It seems to me that nowadays, people do dip in salt because it tastes better, and that constitutes Hiddur Mitzvah (beautifying the commandment). The Rambam wrote to dip it into Haroset, but others disagreed with him, and that is not the prevailing custom.
Orach Chaim.493.4
And there are different practices regarding mourning customs during Sefirat Ha'Omer. There are some who have the practice of forbidding [weddings and haircuts and parties with music] immediately after Pesach until Lag Ba'Omer, and from that point on they permit weddings and haircuts, since according to a midrashic tradition they [ie the students of Rabbi Akiva] stopped dying and 34 days were left. And it would be logical for the prohibitions to remain until the 35th of sefirah, but we say "a little bit of the day counts as the full day" and so it is permissible [to marry and cut hair etc.] on the 34th day but not early. And this is the path of our master the Beit Yosef who writes, "and the custom is not to have one's hair cut until Lag Ba"Omer for it is said that is when they [Rabbi Akiva's students] stopped dying. And one should not take a haircut until the morning of the 34th of sefirah. However, if Lag BaOmer occurs on Friday, then one can cut one's hair on that day out of honor of Shabbat for that is a time of haircuts for the sake of Shabbat." - And these above are the words of Beit Yosef. And he further writes in se'if 3 "some have the custom to take a haircut on Rosh Hodesh Iyyar and it is a mistake for them to do so." Those were his words above. And he meant that according to the custom that these things are permissible after Lag Ba'Omer, the prohibitions must begin immediately after Pesach for they died for the 34 days after Pesach. And if that is so, how could one take a haircut on Rosh Hodesh Iyyar - it's an internal contradiction of two different mourning customs. And what we said about haircuts is the same for weddings for they are all one matter.
Orach Chaim.494.5
And it is customary to eat dairy foods and honey, based on “honey and milk under your tongue.” And there are additional hints regarding the eating of dairy. A hint was found in the Torah in the initial letters of “A new [offering] to the Lord on your Weeks.” And this is the wording of our teacher the Rema: “And it is customary to eat dairy foods on the first day of Shavuot. And it seems to me the reason is like the two cooked dishes taken on the night of Passover, one in memory of the Passover offering and one in memory of the festival offering. So too we eat a dairy food and a meat food. And we must bring with them two loaves of bread on the table, which is in place of the altar, and this serves as a remembrance of the two loaves that were offered on the Day of First Fruits.” End of his words. And also because through the giving of the Torah they were elevated above and transformed from the impurity of Egypt to the holiness of sanctity, therefore we eat milk, which is formed from blood, as it is said: blood is congealed and becomes milk. And there is in this a hint that judgment is transformed into mercy. And it is also customary to put saffron, which is called zaafran, into the foods and cooked dishes, because it brings joy and has a good fragrance, based on “the scent of your oils is good” (see Magen Avraham, subsection 6, in the name of the Zohar, and this is as I wrote). And one should not be lenient on Shavuot regarding eating meat after dairy or the reverse, more than during the rest of the year. And also regarding milk that was milked that day by a non-Jew – it is forbidden to eat it, just like on any other festival.
Orach Chaim.494.7
It is forbidden to fast on the day after Shavuot, and on any Isru Chag fasting is prohibited and Tachanun is omitted. However, Isru Chag of Shavuot is more stringent, because when Shavuot fell on Shabbat, the day of slaughtering for the festival sacrifices would occur after Shabbat, since they do not override Shabbat. Yet women are permitted to do labor on Isru Chag, and all the more so men. Furthermore, Tachanun is omitted continuously from the Rosh Chodesh Sivan until after Isru Chag: it is inherently omitted on Rosh Chodesh, while the three days leading up to Shavuot are the joyous "Three Days of Restriction" (Yemei Hagbalah) preparing for the giving of the Torah, which consequently elevates the single interim day (the 2nd of Sivan) into the period of joy—a day known as the "Distinguished Day" because Moses commanded Israel to sanctify themselves then, and because it always shares a day of the week with the upcoming Yom Kippur. (Note that under the fixed modern calendar, Shavuot can no longer fall on the Sabbath since Passover cannot begin on a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, though it was possible when the calendar was established by moon-sightings.) With the help of Heaven, the Laws of Passover are completed.
Orach Chaim.549.1
It is well-known that it is a positive commandment of the Torah to yell out and to supplicate about every woe - that it should not come - and it is explained in the Laws of Fasts. And there are days that all of Israel fasts because of the woes that happened on them in order to awaken the hearts and open the paths of repentance. And this is to remember our bad deeds and the deeds of our ancestors, which were like our current [bad] deeds, until it caused them - and us - those woes. And in remembering these things, we repent to do the good, as it is written (Leviticus 26:40), "And they will confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers." (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Fasts 5)
Orach Chaim.549.2
And they are four days: The third day of Tishrei, on which Gedaliah ben Achikam was killed and the remaining coal of Israel was extinguished and this was a cause for the increase of the woes. The tenth of Tevet, on which the evil Nevuchadnetsar approached Jerusalem, as it is written in II Kings 25:1 and in Jeremiah 52:4, "in the ninth year of [the rule of Tsidkiyahu] on the tenth month on the tenth of the month, Nevuchadnetsar and all of his army came upon Jerusalem." And the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed this to Yechezkel - who was in Babylonia with the exile of Yochaniah - in a prophecy on that same day, as it is written (Ezekiel 24:1-2), "And the word of God was upon me in the ninth year on the tenth month on the tenth day, saying, 'Son of man, write for yourself the name of this day - of this very day - [as] the king of Babylonia approached Jerusalem on this very day.'" Which is to say that He commanded him to write the name of the day, which is the name of the month and also the specific day, and he wrote, "on the tenth of the tenth month," and the prophet did not know for what [reason] He commanded him to write this. And after he wrote it, He revealed to him, "You should know 'the king of Babylonia approached Jerusalem on this very day.'" And through this they all saw the true prophecy, as that day and that time were revealed to the prophet in Babylonia. Since, the exact [time] of the day is called "that very day," as per chatsot hayom (midday). And [this is] because there were then false prophets who fooled Israel, like Chananiah ben Azur and his colleagues, who prophesied that the Temple would not be destroyed and that Israel would not be exiled from their land, and [so] they strengthened the hands of the sinners. And Yirmiah - who rebuked them that they should return to God, and if not, the Temple would be destroyed and Israel would be exiled - they placed in the courtyard of the guardhouse and put him in a pit of mud, as is explained in Jeremiah 38. Hence, God informed Yechezkel the prophet in Babylonia that Yirmiah was a true prophet, and he prophesied in Babaylonia all that was happening in the Land of Israel, and that the Tenth of Tevet was the beginning of all the woes. Therefore, they established it as a fast day for the generations. And it is found in the name of the early ones, that if the Tenth of Tevet would come out on Shabbat, it would push off the Shabbat, as it is written about it, "on that very day," like Yom Kippur (Beit Yosef, Section 550 in the name of Abudarham). But we do not hold like this, as will be explained.
Orach Chaim.549.3
And on the seventeenth day of Tammuz, five things occurred. The tablets were broken. And the [daily] sacrifice in the first Temple ceased. And the city of Jerusalem was breached at the [time of] the destruction of the second Temple. And Apostimos burned the Torah and set up an image in the [Temple] chamber. And so [too] on the ninth of Av, five things also occurred. 1) It was decreed in the desert that Israel would not enter the land. 2-3) And the Temple was destroyed, the first and the second. As at the end of II Kings 25 8-9, it is written, "And on the fifth month on the ninth of the month, in the twelfth year of the reign of Nevuchadnetsar...came Nevuzaradan... and the burned the House of the Lord." And at the end of Jeremiah 52:12, it is written about this very story, "on the tenth of the month." And they said in Taanit, "It was taught, 'It is impossible to say on "on the seventh," as behold it has already been stated "on the tenth;" and it is impossible to say "on the tenth," as behold it has already been stated "on the seventh." So how is this? On the seventh, they entered the chamber, etc. On the ninth close to darkness, they set it on fire and it continued to burn the entire day of the tenth'" (Taanit 29a). 4) And Beitar was conquered on it, and there were thousands and tens of thousands of Jews [there]. And there was a king there and many imagined that he was the king Messiah. But the sins caused that they were all killed and they were also not allowed to be buried, and it was a great woe like the destruction of the Temple. 5) And on this day that is fit for punishments, the evil Turnus Rufus plowed over the [Temple] chamber, in order to fulfill that which was stated, "Zion will be plowed for a field."
Orach Chaim.549.4
And these four fasts; behold they are explicit in the tradition through the prophet, Zachariah 8:19, "So said the Lord of Hosts, 'the fast of the fourth and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth will be for the House of Yehuda for happiness and rejoicing.'" "The fast of the fourth" is the seventeenth of Tammuz, as it is in the fourth month. And "the fast of the fifth" is the ninth of Av, as it is in the fifth month. And "the fast of the seventh" is the Fast of Gedaliah, as it is in the seventh of the months. And "the fast of the tenth" is the tenth of Tevet, as it is in the tenth of the months. And all of Israel is accustomed to fast on those days. And even though with the first Temple, Jerusalem was breached on the ninth of Tammuz - as it is written in Kings there - nonetheless, they did not decree a fast upon it; only on the seventeenth, upon which the city was breached with the second [Temple]. And for us the destruction of the second Temple is [more] weighty, as from then we have become poor and scattered to the four corners of the earth. And to decree that they should fast on [both] the ninth and the seventeenth, we do not decree too much upon the community. (And Beit Yosef brought in the name of Rabbenu Yerucham that Gedaliah was killed on Rosh Hashanah, and it was pushed off to the next day - see there. And nonetheless, it does not have the status of a fast that is pushed off, concerning one who needs to do a circumcision - as it is like this all of the years. And it is not similar to a fast that is pushed off from Shabbat to Sunday, as everyone [is aware] of the pushing off, which is not the case with the Fast of Gedaliah, as all years are the same. And [this is] like the conclusion of Taz - see there.)
Orach Chaim.549.5
In the Talmud there, it is expounded from the verses in Zachariah that in the time of the Temple these fasts were for happiness and rejoicing [and not for fasting], and so [too] will it be in the future, if God wills. And during the time of the destruction: if the Children of Israel are in a state of pain, they are obligated to fast - and it is positive commandment of the words of tradition and all of Israel accepted it upon them; and in a time when they are not in a state of pain, if the majority of the community wanted, they fast [and] if the majority did not want, they don't fast. And at this time, they wanted and accepted upon themselves to fast (Tur). And especially now there is pain. And nonetheless, we did not accept them as a complete public fast to be stopping [to eat] from when it is still day [on the eve], to walk barefoot [and to abstain from] bathing, applying [ointments] and sexual relations, except only on the Ninth of Av. But [on] the other three fasts, we eat at night [on the eve] and we do not practice all of the stringencies, but [rather just] fast from the morning to the evening, as per the law of a private fast. And at this time - [due to] our many sins - [there are those that] devalue these fasts and they will bear the punishment [for this] in the future. As it is forbidden for anyone who is healthy to separate himself from the community, and [if he does,] he transgresses a positive commandment from the words of tradition. And even the one that needs to eat because of his weakness should not eat his meal like on all the [other] days, but rather only food and drink needed for the sustenance of his body. And this is [what] we are accustomed [to do].
Orach Chaim.551.24
And other beverages are permitted, even wine vinegar. And the prohibition applies both to animal meat and to poultry. Only one who is weak may eat poultry if he needs it. And there is one who permits gravy made from meat, but that is not the custom. And even meat that was in our possession before Rosh Chodesh – it is forbidden to eat it, even what remains from Shabbos. And this is not comparable to what the Rosh wrote in the first chapter of Chullin, regarding limbs of slaughtered meat that Israel brought into the Land, where they raised the question of whether they are permitted or forbidden; and the Rosh wrote that this makes a difference for one who vows against something and already has some of that thing from before the vow – see there – for that case involves a new vow, and not a vow that is observed generation after generation, which is treated like a long-standing prohibition. And regarding mixtures of meat in other foods, it appears that in this matter they did not follow the rule of "imparting flavor," for they did not decree in such a case. Furthermore, one who vows against wine is permitted to eat a cooked dish that has the taste of wine in it, as is written in Yoreh De'ah siman 216, see there. And even what was wine during these days, and turned into vinegar – this too is permitted (Taz, se'if katan 9). And one who vowed not to eat meat from the Seventeenth of Tammuz – he is permitted to eat it on Shabbosos, for anyone who makes a vow – makes it with the communal custom in mind (Magen Avraham, O.C. 551:27). And there are those who disagree, and require annulment of the vow (ibid., in the name of the Bach). However, if he did not state it in the language of a vow, but only in the language of acceptance – it is certainly permitted (ibid.).
Orach Chaim.554.4
And according to this, I would say the following: the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch wrote that even regarding the "bad things," one is only permitted to read them, but not to delve deeply and engage in dialectical analysis (pilpul) with them (Taz, end of se'if katan 2; Magen Avraham, se'if katan 5). But in truth this is very difficult for a Torah scholar who is studying, since against his will his mind will inevitably think up a question and an answer, and the like. However, according to what I have written, this works out well: certainly the flavor and sweetness of Torah exists in all matters of Torah, even in the bad things, it is only that the distress cancels out the joy. If so, even if he innovates some novel insight, nevertheless the distress over the calamities is not thereby nullified. (As for what is noted in the Magen Avraham there, that the Maharil wrote likewise, on the contrary, the Beit Yosef cited in his name that through deep analysis it is actually preferable, since one becomes distressed through his analysis, see there. It is only in the name of Rabbeinu Peretz that he wrote that one should not analyze the commentary on Iyov, since it is deeper, and reasoning about it is forbidden, see there. But from this there is no proof, since Iyov involves profound inquiry. And furthermore, none of the halachic authorities mentioned this, and indeed the Shulchan Aruch rules the opposite.)
Orach Chaim.581.12
We do not recite Tachanun during Shacharit on Erev Rosh Hashana (i.e. the day whose evening is the start of Rosh Hashana). Even though we "fall on our faces" (recite petitionary prayers) through the observance of Selichot (during the final days of Elul), and sometimes these (pre-dawn prayers) continue into the day, nonetheless during Shacharit (on Erev Rosh Hashana) we do not recite Tachanun, just as for the Eve of every Yom Tov. And we do not sound the shofar on Erev Rosh Hashana, in order to separate what is merely permitted from what is obligated. Though in the study hall, it is allowed. We do not sound shofar at night anytime during the whole month of Elul, even for the sake of learning. For one does not try to arouse (heavenly mercy) at night, and sounding the shofar arouses the uppermost qualities. The custom is to allow oaths on Erev Rosh Hashana.
Orach Chaim.585.1
It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah using a shofar, as it says (Numbers 29:1), "it shall be a day of teru'ah for you." And each teruah should have a tekiah before it and a tekiah after it And the reason for this is explained in Section 609. And behold we blow twice: once after Torah reading, and the second during Mussaf along with the blessings. And this is not a violation of "bal tosif" for that prohibition is only when one adds to the essential mitzvah for example if someone blows with two shofarot at the same time - similar to how someone would violate that prohibition by adding a fifth species to the lulav. But someone who takes a lulav and puts it down, even one hundred times, does not in this way violate the prohibition of "bal tosif." Similarly with a shofar: if one blows and then blows again - this is not bal tosif (see Tosafot, Rosh Hashannah 16b "Ve'Toki'im).
Orach Chaim.585.2
However, why did the sages need to do this? Behold, there is certainly no question about having shofar blasts during Musaf for the essence of the mitzvah is to blow shofar along with the Musaf blessings. So the real question is why was it necessary to blow shofar earlier. And the Talmud says about this (ibid.): "in order to confuse Satan." And Rashi explains (s.v. k'dai l'arbev), that this is what that implies: Since Satan sees how beloved the mitzvot are by Israel, that they do mitzvot, go back and do them a second time, he is silenced from making accusations. And Tosafot, in the name of the Arukh, explain, based on the Yerushalmi, that Satan is frightened lest this be the Shofar of the future as it says, "and it shall be on that day when they blast the great shofar." and so is too preoccupied to lodge accusations against Israel. See there. And this matter requires further explanation...
Orach Chaim.585.3
It seems to me that this is the explanation: In truth, why were the special Rosh Hashanah blessings of Malkhiot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot established as part of Mussaf? Why were they not included as part of Shacharit? And, in truth, the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 32b) asks this question: "What about the principle that we should display alacrity in mitzvah performance? We should say these blessings in Shacharit!" And the Talmud answers, "this was taught in a time of persecution." And the Palestinian Talmud there (4:8) explains in greater detail, that in truth this happened, for the non-Jewish nations decreed against us and barred us from blowing shofar, because the nations surmised that we were blowing shofar for some nefarious purpose, and then the associated blessings were pushed from Shacharit to Mussaf. And even once the decrees were canceled, they did not want to return to the earlier practice. And it is explained there that when the nations saw that we recite Shema and then recite Shacharit and then read Torah and only then blow shofar they realize that the shofar blowing is just part of our ritual observance of the day and they are not concerned. (See Tosafot in contrast to Rashi there). And for this reason we blow shofar before Mussaf since we used to blow Shoafar during Shacharit along with the Malkhiot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot blessings that were also part of Shacharit at that time and they used to only blow then until it was pushed to Mussaf by persecution. And so, in order not to overly distance themselves form the original way of doing things, and to make the shofar blowing closer to Shacharit to honor the principle of acting with alacrity for mitzvah performance - for even though there was a decree against them, nonetheless they act with courge to do the mitzvah with even more earnestness and boldness. For earlier, before the decree, they only blew shofar once, and after the decree they blew shofar twice. And Satan is also confused in case the merit of these shofar blasts bring about the great shofar and he is not able to make accusations. And his accusations will be for naught since the Holy Blessed One sees just how much mitzvot are beloved by the=Jews.
Orach Chaim.585.4
And the custom is to blow shofar from the bimah, the place where the Torah is read, since we established shofar blowing for right after Torah reading on Rosh Hashanah morning. And the one who blows needs to recite the blessings and to blow shofar while standing and should not lean on anything. But, if he does blow while seated, he nonetheless fulfills the obligation for standing is not an indispensable detail of the mitzvah. And the congregation can sit even lechatchilah (from the outset). And the custom is to recite Psalm 47, which includes the phrase "all your peoples, clap your hands," seven times before shofar blowing. And sometimes the ignorant people, when they don't finish reciting it seven times continue to recite it during the shofar blasts. And they need to be informed that it is forbidden to do this as they are obligated to listen to the shofar blasts and should not say anything at all during the shofar blowing. For Psalm 47 is not an actual mitzvah. And some omit it altogether for this reason.
Orach Chaim.585.5
The one who blows shofar makes the blessing "Blessed....who sanctified us with His Commandments and commanded us to hear the sound of the shofar" for the mitzvah is in the hearing. And if one blows and does not hear, then he has not fulfilled his obligation whatsoever. And then he recites a "SheHechiyanu" blessing and the congregation responds "amen" to the two blessings. And one should be careful not to say "Baruch Hu U'Varuch Shemo" for that would be an interruption in the blessing. And even if the shofar blower has already fulfilled his obligation, he should make these blessings on behalf of those who hear him. But it would be better if the listeners make teh blessings and not the blower since he has already fulfilled his obligation - especially the "she'hechiyanu" blessing. But this is not the common practice. And nonetheless if one blows shofar for an individual, for example someone who is sick, it is best if the listener makes the blessings (cf Magen Avraham 3). And in particular if the blower is blowing on behalf of a woman or several women, who are personally exempt from the mitzvah of shofar, since it is a "positive time-bound mitzvah" but they have obligated themselves, it is certainly appropriate that they make the blessings for themselves rather than have the shofar blower make the blessings unless he too has not yet fulfilled his obligation.
Orach Chaim.585.6
And then he should blow: Tekiah, Shevarim-Teruah, Tekiah three times. Then Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah three times. And then Tekiah, Teru'ah, Tekiah three times. And the reason will be explained in Section 590. See there for more. And the congregation should not interrupt by saying the "Yehi Ratzon" prayer in between the Tekiah, Shevarim-Teruah, Tekiah set and the Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah set and between the Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah set and the Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah set. And this is not how it is printed in machzorim. And it is good to blow shofar to the right side and not to the left since the right signifies mercy and the left signifies judgement. And some say that a left-handed shofar blower should blow to the left which is his "right" just like he wears tefilin on the opposite arm as right-handed people. And this is a questionable thing since he does this mitzvah on behalf of many people he should follow the "right hand" of the majority. However the Levush writes that according to Kabbalah it is better to blow towards the left and one can see there. And he should hold the shofar to his mouth angled a bit upward for the sake of the veres "God rises with a teruah." And all these matters are not indispensable and no matter how the shofar is blown one fulfills the obligation. And anyone in doubt about whether or not he heard the shofar blasts should blow again without a blessing since blessings are never indispensable to mitzvah performance. And on the second day of Rosh Hashanah he does not have to blow again since it is a doubt concerning a rabbinic mitzvah and this is not a very common thing to doubt.
Orach Chaim.585.7
If the blower begins to blow but is not able to complete, someone else should complete on the support of the first berakhah, even if several shofar-blowers need to be swapped in. And this is true specifically when the replacement shofar blowers were present when the blessing was recited. And if not, they need to recite a blessing. Not only this, but even if the one making the blessing s not able to blow at all, his blessing is still not a wasted or null blessing and someone else can blow based on the blessing of the first blower.
Orach Chaim.585.8
And regarding the shofar blasts that accompany the blessings of Mussaf, the prayer-leader should not blow them but someone else should so that the prayer-leader will not become confused in his prayers. However, if he s certain that he will not be confused, and will be able to return to leading prayers, he is entitled to blow. And it is correct that the one who blows before Mussaf should be the one who blows during Mussaf, since when someone starts a mitzvah we tell them to complete it, unless it becomes too difficult for hm to blow in which case it not indispensable that he continue and blow during Mussaf. And the custom is to call to the shofar blower word for word so that he not err, and this is correct. And we select as the one who calls for the shofar blower someone who is great n Torah knowledge for according to Kabbalah this is a major matter. And one who receives money to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or to lead prayers, or to recite the translation of the Torah reading in communities where that is still done - will not see any blessing from that money, but there is no prohibition in this. And the essential intent of the one who blows the shofar and those who listen is to fulfill a positive mitzvah that the Holy Blessed One commanded to blow a shofar on Rosh Hashanah. And if he knows additional matters on this based on the Zohar, happy is his portion, but the essential intention is as I have written and no particular intention is akin to doing the mitzvah lishmah. [And see the Magen Avraham for a magical charm for when one cannot blow shofar: turn it upside down and call into it "VaYehi Noam" and see there, but do not do this for the tekiot that are before Mussaf for that would constitute an inappropriate interruption. And see Sha'arei Teshuvah.]
Orach Chaim.604.1
......
Orach Chaim.604.6
Know that in the Rambam, in his Laws of Yom Kippur, this law of eating and drinking on the ninth does not exist. And ostensibly, the reason is simple: In Yoma, it's a Tannaic dispute regarding the interpretation of that verse. One of the Tannaim derives from that verse the concept of adding extra time to the day of Yom Kippur [by starting earlier than sunset]. Thus we have there: "And you shall afflict your soul... on the ninth of the month..." Do you really think one should start fasting on the ninth? The Torah therefore says, "in the evening." But if it's the evening, one might think [this means] only once it gets dark? The Torah therefore says, "on the ninth." How does one accomplish this? He shall start fasting while it is still day. From here we have the concept of adding from the non-holy day to the holy day... And [the gemara] questions this: But the Tanna who derives the concept of adding extra time to Yom Kippur from a different verse, what does he do with this verse? And [the gemara] answers: That anyone who eats and drinks of the ninth is as if he fasted for both days... And so the Rambam in Laws of Yom Kippur 1:6 writes, "And one must add from the non-holy day onto the holy day... as it says, 'And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening,' meaning, you shall start to fast from the end of the ninth close to it..." And since he uses this verse for the concept of adding time to Yom Kippur, he therefore doesn't use it for the derivation of "Anyone who eats and drinks..." And that's why he leaves it out.
Orach Chaim.604.7
But if so, why does the Rambam mention it in the Laws of Vows 3:9, "One who vows to fast on Monday or Tuesday, and it turns out it is Yom Tov or Erev Yom Kippur, he is obligated to fast... If it turns out it is Chanukah or Purim, he should push off the fast [til afterward]. since it is a rabbinical prohibition to fast on those days, it needs bolstering [and therefore fasting on it to fulfill a vow is forbidden]." It is explicitly implied that Erev Yom Kippur is forbidden to fast on from the Torah, like Yom Tov, and doesn't need bolstering. And that's how the commentators have understood his words.
Orach Chaim.604.8
I am very puzzled by this! If one thinks that the Rambam holds that it is forbidden to fast on Erev Yom Kippur on a Torah level, or even on a rabbinical level, and that one must eat on it and drink - how could he not mention it in the appropriate place, in the Laws of Yom Kippur, but instead rely on the fact he mentioned it by-the-by in the Laws of Vows, through the opposite fact where one would be obligated to fast [if one took a vow]. And so, it seems in my humble opinion that it is clear according to what I have said, that the Rambam discarded this law, as I wrote. And the fact that he wrote in the Laws of Vows that one is obligated to fast [if one took a vow for Erev Yom Kippur], the reason isn't because it is a Yom Tov, whether on a Torah level or close to it, and it doesn't even need bolstering. Just the opposite - [the reason one must fast on it if one took a vow to do so is] because there is totally no mitzvah to eat, either on a Torah level or rabbinical. That's why the vow takes effect. And the reason why it was mentioned at all is because the custom of everyone is to eat a lot on Erev Yom Kippur. And there is a Midrash of a tailor who spent much money for a fish on Erev Yom Kippur, brought by the Tur. And we find it similarly in the end of the 5th chapter of Chulin 83a that they would have much for meals on Erev Yom Kippur. And so that one will not be mistaken that there is some rabbinical mitzvah, and therefore the vow shouldn't take effect on that7 day like Chanukah and Purim - [the Rambam] teaches us that there is no rabbinical command at all, and the vow takes effect. And the Rambam is not alone on this, for I didn't find this law in the Rif and the Smag the command to eat on Erev Yom Kippur. And their reasoning is because that verse is used for adding time to Yom Kippur, see there.
Orach Chaim.620.1
Yom Kippur shaḥarit is prayed as per usual. And it is customary to say the Song of Unity for that day, and An'im Zemirot, and the psalm of the day, before prayer. And the blessing "who has made for me all my needs" is not said. And the Rosh, the Ran, and the Tur (§ 613) disagree on this — see therein. And each person can do as he wishes, but from the Rambam it appears that it is not blessed. And the piyyuṭim are all according to custom. But what astonishes me is that the Rosh on Yoma, and the Tur in said section, brought down in the names of the gaonim to say the Thirteen Attributes five times in shaḥarit, and some say thirteen times to correspond with the thirteen attributes, and some say seven times, and in musaf seven times, and so too in minḥa — see therein — but we don't mention it even once! And there are baseless customs which we are careful to follow, but to say the thirteen attributes — that which is from the gaonim! — we are not careful. (And all this sprouted from the lengthening of melodies, until there was no longer time to say seliḥot. And saying the thirteen attributes is impossible without saying seliḥot. And the great gaonim have already decried the cantors, but we have no power to protest, may God forgive!)
Orach Chaim.620.2
The Tur and the Shulḥan Arukh wrote that it is proper to shorten the shaḥarit piyyuṭim, so as to pray musaf before the seventh hour, lest the time for minḥa arrive and they be forced to advance it, as I wrote in § 286. And the Tur and the Rosh wrote that when one sees that the community is lengthening shaḥarit one prays musaf alone — see therein. And we are a priori careful about this, but post facto there is no concern, for many disagree about this, as I wrote therein. And specifically, some say that this is just on account of eating, as it is forbidden to eat when the time for minḥa arrives, as I wrote there, and this is irrelevant on Yom Kippur. (And the Magen Avraham brings that the Mahari"l, when shaḥarit went late, would not say Avinu Malkenu.)
Orach Chaim.625.1
It is a positive biblical commandment to sit in the Sukkah for seven days, from the 15th of Tishrei until after the 21st of Tishrei, for it is written in Parashat Emor (Leviticus 23:34): "On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD... Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall dwell in booths; that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt" (Leviticus 23:42-43).
Orach Chaim.635.2
"for I caused Israel to dwell in Sukkot" (Leviticus 23:43) --these were clouds of glory according to Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva says 'these were actual sukkot.' (Sukkah 11b). According to the position of Rabbi Eliezer, it is obvious that we would want to remember such a tremendous feat as being surrounded by the clouds of glory...for inside the clouds of glory God was revealed to all the people, as it says, "You, O LORD, appear in plain sight when Your cloud rests over them and when You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night."(Numbers 14:14) However, for Rabbi Akiva whose understands these to be physical sukkot, what is so great about these that the Torah instructs us to build them "in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths"? (Leviticus 23:43)
Orach Chaim.668.2
In the diaspora we eat in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret, at night and during the day, for it is possibly truly the seventh day of Sukkot And we do not recite a blessing on sitting in the sukkah. And we do say a "she'hechiyanu" blessing during kiddush on Shimini Atzeret night since it is a distinct holiday. And, indeed this is the conclusion of the Gemara (Sukkah 47a) that we sit in the sukkah on the eigth day but do not recite a blessing on sitting in the sukkah. Nonetheless, we find in the halakhic writings many different customs: The Mordechai in the name of Ravyah writes that it is forbidden to sleep in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret because of "bal tosif" [the prohibition against adding to mitzvot]. For when it comes to eating in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret there is a means of distinguishing that Sukkot is over in the absense of the blessing on sitting in the sukkah. But when it comes to sleeping in the sukkah, what means of distinguishing could there be? (Magen Avraham). And even though this is not fully "bal tosif" as I wrote above in Siman 666 for "bal tosif" at the wrong time for the original mitzvah requires intention to violate the prohibition nonetheless it looks like "bal tosif." Furthermore, in truth one is sitting in the sukkah to do a mitzvah out of doubt concerning the date and so some sort of distinguishing is needed since we truly do now the date of the month's start. And I will explain this in paragraph 5 with God's help.
Orach Chaim.668.3
And for this reason we leave the sukkah after our morning meal on Shimini Atzeret. And there are some who do not eat in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret at night but do eat in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret during the day but this is not a valid practice (Tur). And some will make kiddush and eat a little bit in the sukkah and then go home for their meal. And this practice was loudly criticized by many great scholars since the Gemara concludes that the halakhah is that we do sit in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret and if so we must sit in the sukkah all night and all day and we should also sleep in the sukkah without any distinction with the other days of Sukkot.
Orach Chaim.668.4
However, according to my humble opinion there is a rationale for the custom of the Jewish people an the matter is all true it just requires explanation. For in truth the Gemara does conclude that we should sit in the sukkah, but our rabbis the Tosafists wrote there, and this is their language, "they did not want to enact that the lulav should be taken as well on Shimini Atzeret out of doubt for Shimini Atzeret is yom tov and the lulav and etrog would be muktzah and taking it would be a problematic weekday activity. But regarding the sukkah, sometimes a sukkahi s a pleasant place to eat and one might eatin a sukkah even on yom tov that was not Sukkot." And the Tur writes and this is his language, "it is not releavant to question sitting in the Sukkah on Shimini Atzeret as a problematic weekday activity since many times people sit in the shade of a sukkah." So it is clear that the essential permissibility of sitting in the Sukkah on Shimini Atzeret is due to there being no way to discern that one is sitting in the sukkah for mitzvah purposes but were it apparent that one was only sitting in the sukkah because of the command to sit in the sukkah it would not be permissible to do so on Shimini Atzeret.
Orach Chaim.668.5
And according to this, all is well. For certainly in warm climates like Babylonia, and the western and southern lands, where it is warm and mild during Sukkot, certainly they must eat and sleep in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret just like on Sukkot itself. But in northern lands like ours, where it is mostly cold on Sukkot, if one did not force oneself into the sukkah despite the cold, one would miss the mitzvah entirely. And we force ourselves to eat and sleep in the sukkah on Sukot and indeed, most avoid sleeping in the sukkah because of the cold as I wrote earlier. However, on Shimini Atzeret, where the sages commanded us to sit in the sukkah in a way that makes it clear we have no mitzvah to sit in the sukkah is something that is nearly impossible in our lands. Heaven forfend that we would ignore the enactment of the sages, but we still have to make it clear that we are not sitting in the sukkah out of obligation. This means that one who sleeps in the sukkah during Sukkot should not sleep in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret and one who does not sleep in the sukkah on Sukkot would now have no distinguishing feature and so must find some other distinguishing feature such as not eating in the sukkah at night or to eat part of his meal outside of the sukkah. These two distinguishing features are not ideal and it would be best to simply leave the sukkah after the daytime meal to show that the meal was not eaten in the sukkah for a mitzvah. And in this way all of the customs are upheld (and so it seems in my humble opinion).
Orach Chaim.670.1
In the [time of] the second Temple when the evil Antiochuses lived, they made decrees against Israel and [forbade] their holy religion; they did not allow them to be engaged with Torah study and with the commandments; and they placed their hand on their money and on their daughters. And they entered the Temple and opened gaps [in its walls], made the pure things impure, caused pain to Israel and brought great duress upon them. Until the Lord, the God of their forefathers had mercy upon them and delivered them from their hand, and saved them through the holy and pure sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priests, Mattatyahu and his sons; who fought with Antiochus and were able [to win]. And the victory was not according to nature, as the Hasmoneans [together ] with a band of pious men were very few and Antiochus came against them with a large [group], with many elephants and with chariot and riders. However the Lord, who desires His people, Israel, 'delivered the mighty into the hand of the weak, the many into the hand of the few, the impure into the hand of the pure and the evildoers into the hand of the righteous.' And the renegades from Israel who appended themselves to Antiochus were also killed and delivered into the hand of those engaged in Torah study. And then the name of Heaven was magnified and sanctified in the world, the light of the Torah shone in its true purity and the name of Israel was magnified.
Orach Chaim.670.2
And the end of the miracle was on the 25th of Kislev. And another miracle was shown to them from the Heavens through the 'candle of the commandment and the Torah light.' As we have the text in Shabbat 21b that reads, "What is Chanukkah, that our Sages taught: 'On the 25th of Kislev - the days of Chanukkah, they are eight, not to eulogize on them and not to fast on them?' When the Greeks entered the Temple, they polluted all the oils in the Temple, and when the Hasmonean dynasty overcame and defeated them, they checked and they found but one cruse of oil that was set in place with the seal of the High Priest, but there was in it only [enough] to light a single day. A miracle was done with it, and they lit from it for eight days. The following year [the Sages] fixed those [days], making them holidays for praise and thanksgiving."
Orach Chaim.670.3
The explanation of these words: When they purified the Temple, they were all impure from defilement with corpses from the war. And someone impure from contact with corpses can only become pure after seven days - through the sprinkling [of purifying waters] on the third and seventh day. And [then] one [more] day [was needed] for the preparation of pure oil (Beit Yosef). And also, as the pure oil was at a distance of four days [sojourn], by the time they would go and come back, eight days would pass (Ran on Shabbat 21a). And they did not have what to light in the menorah. [It is true that] they sacrificed all of the daily sacrifices, since a communal sacrifice pushes off [the prohibition of sacrificing when the priests are in a state of] impurity. And therefore, they could have also lit the candles of the menorah for this reason, as it is taught [in a bereita] in Torat Cohanim, Parshat Emor, at the end of Parsha 13, "'He shall arrange the candles in front of Me always' - 'always,' even on Shabbat; 'always' even in [a state of] impurity." However the oil had to be pure, as impurity is only rendered permissible for the community [in this context] with regards to the impurity from contact with corpses; but not other impurities, as is explained in Pesachim 67a. And the oil was made impure with [such] other impurities - though their touch and their being carried. And all of the olives were [similarly] made impure. [This situation lasted] until they attained [olives that were still] attached [to the tree], as they do not absorb impurity, and [so] eight days passed. And therefore, when they found this cruse sealed with the seal of the High Priest - and it had been placed in a deep location such that it was not raised up; as were this not so, it would have become impure through being raised up (Tosefot, Shabbat 21b), and also, had [the Greeks] seen [it], they would have certainly taken it, as it would have appeared that there were precious stones there (Ran, op.cit.) - the Holy One, blessed be He, made a miracle for them. As even though there was only enough [pure] oil for one day - they lit for eight days from it, until they made pure oil. And hence, they 'fixed eight days for praise and thanksgiving.' (And see Beit Chadash, but according to what I have written, it easily comes out fine.)
Orach Chaim.670.4
And even though the miracle was really for seven days - as there was enough in it to light for one day - nonetheless, since only one eighth of the oil was lit, it follows that the miracle was also on the first day (Beit Yosef). And there is someone (Shiltei Hagiburim citing Hagahot Mordechai?) who wrote, "[Eight days are commemorated,] since they [forbade] the commandment of circumcision, which is for eight days." And there is one who wrote, [It is] because they then inaugurated the Temple for the service that the evil Antiochus had [forbidden] (Ibid.).
Orach Chaim.670.5
And [the last reason] is the truth - as in the Midrash, it is found that the work of the tabernacle was finished on the 25th of Kislev, and they did not inaugurate it until the beginning of the month (Rosh Chodesh) of Nissan, when the forefathers had been born. And the Holy One, blessed be He, paid [Israel] back in the time of Mattityahu (this midrash is brought by Maharsha, Shabbat 21b). And hence they made it like the inauguration of the Tabernacle, which was [composed of] the seven days of installation and the eighth day, [which] was the completion of the beginning of the service in the Tabernacle by Aharon and his sons, as is explained in the Torah. And so [too] with King Shlomo, it is written in II Chronicles 7, "And Shlomo made the holiday... seven days, and... on the eighth day was a convocation" - see there. And hence to commemorate [this], they called this holiday Chanukah (inauguration) also, from the expression, chanukat hamizbeach (inauguration of the tabernacle) and chanukat habayit (inauguration of the Temple). And with this, there is also an allusion to the 25th day: chanu (they inaugurated) kah [which is made up of the letters kaf and hey, which together represent the number twenty-five] (Ran, op.cit.). And another reason for this is elucidated in the Book of the Maccabees: Since, as a result of the decrees, they were stopped from bringing the sacrifices of the holiday of the past Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret. And hence, to commemorate this, they made the eight days of Channukah. And [it followed] that when from the Heavens they were shown the miracle of the oil - 'They' showed them that 'They' agreed to them making eight days. (And this is [the meaning of] what they wrote in Shabbat, op.cit., "The following year, they fixed, etc.;" meaning to say, after they saw that there was agreement to them from the Heavens to make eight days - through the oil that 'They' showed them [stay] lit for eight days. And in commemoration of this miracle, they fixed that candles be lit on Channukah, as was written by Tur.)
Orach Chaim.678.1
In Siman 263, we explained that between Shabbat candles and the sanctification of the day [wine for kiddush]—Shabbat candles take precedence if one cannot afford both, because peace in the home (shalom bayit) takes precedence over everything. And a Shabbat candle is shalom bayit—avoiding sitting in the dark and stumbling while walking. See there. All the more so that Shabbat candles take precedence over Chanukkah candles, because the sanctification of the day is a Biblical commandment. And even though one could perform the sanctification over bread—indeed, if one also does not have bread, Shabbat candles [still] take precedence. All the more so compared to Chanukkah candles, which are a Rabbinic commandment. And even though many halakhic decisors believe that the sanctification is also only Rabbinic, and the Biblical requirement is satisfied through prayer, in any case, it is rooted Biblically. And even though the Chanukkah candles include publicity of the miracle, still, peace in the home is greater than all of them. But a single candle is sufficient for peace in the home, and with what is left, one should buy Chanukah candles (Magen Avraham [OC 678:1])
Orach Chaim.679.1
(1) On Friday, one should light the Hanukkah light before the Shabbat light. And it does not matter whether one accepts Shabbat through lighting the Shabbat light, in which case it is forbidden to light anything else, but even if one does not accept Shabbat through lighting, nevertheless, one cannot light Shabbat lights before the Hanukkah light, because it is inappropriate after lighting Shabbat lights to do profane work.... Legally, one may light Shabbat lights first, but it is better to light Hanukkah lights first ....
Orach Chaim.679.2
(2) It is true that the RaSHBA, z"l, in a responsum (Part I, #1070), ruled that one should light Shabbat lights first, because "frequent and infrequent -- frequent goes first." And I'm surprised, because the Gemara says explicitly that, if one lacks both [wine for] kiddush and Hanukkah lights, Hanukkah lights takes priority, because of publicizing the miracle, over kiddush that is frequent. It must be that he [RaSHBA] was of the view that this [Talmudic ruling] addressed the situation where one of the practices would be omitted entirely, and did not address which should be performed first [when both could be performed], and that the Tosafot were also of this view. And one can explain further, that on Friday, when one lights while it is still daytime, the consideration of publicizing the miracle does not yet apply.
Orach Chaim.679.3
(3) Nevertheless, the established practice in all corners of the Jewish world is to light Hanukkah lights before Shabbat lights, because our women accept Shabbat through their lighting [Shabbat lights]. And even a man who lights, when it is explicit that he is not accepting Shabbat, and in such way [lighting Shabbat lights first] would be permissible even according to the BH"G, he should still light Hanukkah lights first....
Orach Chaim.685.5
On the second Shabbat, the one before Purim, we read Parshat Zakhor. And many decisors think that Parshat Zakhor is a Torah commandment, meaning that there is an obligation from the Torah to read the Parshah of the annihilation of Amalek once a year. However in the times of Mordekhai and Esther, they fixed this obligation to be on the Shabbat before Purim, to make the annihilation of Amalek adjacent to the fall of Haman, as I have written. And it is written (Esther 9:28), "these days are recalled and observed" - one must have the memory of Amalek precede the doing of the commandment of Purim. And there is someone (Magen Avraham 685) that says that one fulfills the Torah obligation also with the reading on Purim of "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8-16). But in my humble opinion, it is not so. For behold the Rambam wrote in the Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 188 that we were commanded to cut off the descendants of Amalek, etc. And in Commandment 189, he wrote that we were commanded to remember that which Amalek did to us, see there. But that is only mentioned in Parshat Zakhor (Deuteronomy 25:17-19): Remember what Amalek perpetrated against you... When you are rested... you shall obliterate..." Whereas in "And Amalek came," neither the commandment for the community of Israel of remembering nor the commandment of obliteration is written. As there it is written (Exodus 17:14), "for I will surely obliterate..."; but it is not written, "you shall obliterate," that we are obligated to do this. And also in Megillah (18a), it clearly implies that the central obligation is with Parshat Zakhor, as it teaches: "Remember," perhaps [it suffices] in his heart. That is why we learn to say, "You shall not forget" - behold that is already referring to forgetting from the heart. How, then, do I uphold "remember?" With the mouth. See there. Hence the obligation is only [dealt with] in Parshat Zakhor. However it is certainly the case that when one reads from Parshat Ki Tetzeh, he has fulfilled the Torah law. However it is a rabbinic decree that it should be specifically before Purim. And the haftara of Parshat Zakhor is in I Samuel (15), "I have remembered what Amalek perpetrated..." until, "the mountain of Shaul." And there are some that begin one verse earlier, "And Shumel said to Shaul," since that is the beginning of the section.
Orach Chaim.687.2
Our rabbis, the Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Ran, all wrote that the essence of the mitzvah of reading the megilah and publicizing the miracle is during the day and not at night, as it says "I call out each day" that is to say, even though I call out during the day, which is the essential reading, nonetheless, I will not be silent at night. And the essential meal of Purim is also during the day and so too Mishloach Manot. As it says, "and these days shall be remembered and performed." The verse juxtaposes remembering and doing. Just as we do the mitzvot during the day, we remember and recite during the day. Therefore in the Mishnah at the end of the second chapter of Megilah it is taught "the entire day is valid to read megilah." And at night it does not teach that the entire night is valid to read megillah because the essential reading is during the day (Rosh). And for this reason, even though we recite the blessing "She'hechiyanu" on reading the megilah at night we repeat it during the day for the essential reading is during the day. But the Rambam truly rules in the first chapter of Laws of Megilah that we do not repeat the "shehechyanu" blessing during the day and this will be explained in Section 692.
Orach Chaim.695.15
It further seems to me that in this matter a kezayit or a revi’it is insufficient, for we require a proper portion, as implied by the term “manot,” meaning something significant, like a piece fit to be honored; therefore, those who send small pieces do not fulfill their obligation, and whoever increases in mishloach manot is praiseworthy, since this increases joy, and if one lacks the means to send important items while still retaining something for his own Purim joy, he sends his meal to his fellow and his fellow sends his meal to him, thereby both fulfilling the mitzvah; (and although Rashi implies that with a single sending both fulfill their obligation when they eat together—since this is considered joy of mishloach manot for the second as well, as the Bach explains—Rambam and the other authorities do not accept this view, and it is obvious that what is sent must be fit for immediate eating and drinking, such as roasted or cooked food, whereas if one sends it raw, he has not fulfilled the obligation.)
Yoreh De'ah.1.1
Shechita (Ritual slaughtering as dictated in Jewish Law) is a "positive" mitzvah. Shecita is not obligatory (as the case with obligations of Shofar, Succah and Lulav) since if one does not want to eat meat, there is no need to shecht (slaughter) . However, if someone does want to eat meat- there is an obligation to eat the animal only after shechting it, as the verse says, "You shall sacrifice your cattle and sheep like you have been commanded"(Deut. 12:21). Similarly, the shechita of a wild animal (that is kosher) is dictated by Torah law as the verse says regarding a firstborn animal that has a blemish, "...the same way he will eat the deer and the buck" (Deut. 12:22). One learns from this that a wild animal is alike to a domesticated animal in terms of Shechita (See the Sifrei HaMitzvos of the Rambam and the Smag). Furthermore, the shechita of birds is dictated by the Torah since the verse says, "that he will hunt a hunted animal or bird and will pour its blood" (Lev. 17:13). It is concluded from this verse that the pouring of the blood of a bird (which is part of the shechita process of that bird) is the same as that of an animal (see Sifri on Parshas Re'eh). It was taught by Bar Kafra- "This is the set of rules for the animal and the bird and anything that lives in the water" (Lev. 11). 'The bird' has been placed in between 'the animal' and 'anything that lives in the water'...
Yoreh De'ah.1.2
All the laws of Shechita were told to Moshe Rabbenu orally at Sinai like all of the Oral law, as it is written " you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you, as I have instructed you (Deuteronomy.12.21)" This mitzvah is apart of the oral tradition. It is taught in a baraita: "Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse teaches that Moses was previously commanded about the halakhot of slaughter, even though they are not written explicitly in the Torah. He was commanded about cutting the gullet and about cutting the windpipe, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one siman for a bird, and the majority of two simanim for an animal." (According to Tosfot), Rebbe finds an allusion to this in the word "כאשר". The "Alef" (achad) alludes to one siman in a bird, the "Shin" (Shtayim) alludes to two simanim in an animal, and the "Resh" (Rubo) alludes to the majority of one is like the whole. Furthermore, the word כאשר is the reverse acrostic of רובו של אחד כמוהו the majority of one is like the whole.
Yoreh De'ah.63.1
The Beis Yosef writes; discarded meat that was found in a marketplace, we go by the majority (of what it likely could have come from), as whatever is separated from something else is presumed to have come from the majority (of what it is likely to have come from). He means to say that if most of the sellers are Non-Jews, the meat is forbidden. If the majority of sellers are Jews the meat is permitted. Similarly, meat in the hands of a Non-Jew that we don’t know where he got from; if most of the sellers (in the town) are Jews it is permitted. This is all by Torah Law, but the Rabbanim have since forbidden all meat that is merely found, whether in a marketplace or in the hands of a Non-Jew, even if all the sellers and butchers are Jews. Not only that, but even someone who buys meat and leaves it in his house and it becomes hidden from his eyes (I.e he’s not watching over it) is also forbidden, unless the meat has a distinguishing mark or it has a certain look to it that he recognizes enough to be certain that it is the same piece of meat or it was wrapped and sealed (the entire time). If one hung a pot that was full of pieces of meat and the pot broke, and it had no distinguishing mark or distinct look, it is forbidden to eat the meat as it is possible to say that the meat that had been in the pot was dragged away by a wild animal or creeping creature and the meat that is there right now is different meat. These are the words of the Beis Yosef. And all of this is the same language as the Rambam in Perek Ches Halachah Yud Gimmel Machalos Assuros see there further.
Yoreh De'ah.63.2
He further writes; if it was hanging on a peg or something similar, where it would be impossible for a creeping creature to take from it or put into it would be permitted. Some permit meat that was hidden from the eye if it was found in the same place he put it, and our teacher the Rema writes; and the custom is to be lenient like the second opinion and even if the meat was in the hand of a Non-Jew, in a place where all the sellers are Jews that sell meat it would be permitted, these are his words.
Yoreh De'ah.63.3
The explanation of the matter is in the Gemara (95); Rav said, meat that was hidden from the eye is forbidden since some time passed where he did not see the meat; even if it was on his table we are concerned that it got switched for a piece of nevielah (non-kosher meat) and even in a city where most of the butchers are Jews. For we are concerned that crows brought a piece of nevielah from the outside world and switched it. This is just a stringency. And so to it is explained in Yerushalmi Shekalim (7:5) that when Rav went to Bavel he saw them being careless with forbidden things and he was stringent on them to forbid meat that was hidden from the eye.
Yoreh De'ah.63.4
But, according to this, the Gemara is not understandable. It questions Rav from many Mishnaiyos that when meat is in the hand of a Non-Jew it is permitted if most of the butchers are Jewish? Gemara answers that what is in a Non-Jew’s hand is less of a problem than what is hidden from the eye because the meat in his hand is presumed to have been watched, he (presumably) didn’t slaughter it, and Trefiah animals aren't sold to him. However, meat that was hidden from the eye we have to be concerned that the meat was switched by crows. What, however, even was its question as it was Rav himself who innovated this decree because they weren’t being careful with forbidden things. If so, what relevance is there to ask questions from Mishnaiyos (which came before Rav’s time)? You are forced to say that our Gemara does not hold like the Yerushalmi Gemara but rather holds that Rav holds that its forbidden not from the Torah but from the decree of the Sages that made the decree previously and therefore its question make sense.
Yoreh De'ah.63.5
According to this, there is a question to be had on the Rambam, who is stringent even when it is found in the hand of a Non-Jew while the Gemara is in fact lenient about this. Many of his commentaries have already asked this question on his words and answered that the Rambam rules like the Yerushalmi which is stringent in all cases. However according to the Yershualmi’s explanation, the sugya of our Gemara does not make sense. There are some who explain that the when the Gemara permits what is found in the hand of a Non-Jew, that is only in a place where they announce if there is a treifah in the market or not. When there is no announcement, this is a sign that there was no treifah around as is explained in the Gemara (94) that in their days there were places that announced such things. Therefore, Rambam forbids it because in his days they did not make such announcements anywhere and we are therefore concerned there was/had been a treifah in the market that was sold to this Non-Jew. This is an even more bewildering answer as in such case it would certainly be forbidden from the Torah itself and even if it were permitted by the Torah because of the reason that we pressume most animals are kosher, even so, if it were to be that the distinction is dependent between places that announce it and places that don’t, the Gemara should’ve answered its question that way. Furthermore, the Rambam is certainly referring even to a case where we know for certain the Non-Jew purchased kosher meat from the market for he does not make any distinction in the matter and he writes that even if all of the sellers are Jewish so no other type of meat is around at all it is still forbidden. The opinion of the Rambam is the same as the opinion of the other Gaonim as the Rishonim wrote, may they be blessed.
Yoreh De'ah.63.6
The root of the matter does not make sense to me, for the truth of the matter is that we find many arguments between the Yerushalmi and our Gemara. Still in a case like this, where in the Yerushalmi in two places is clear that the matter was known that Rav decreed this thing because they were lenient about prohibited things in Bavel and this was not one of the decrees that the Chachamim had already decreed beforehand, why does our Gemara not consider it until it asked from the previously mentioned mishnaiyos. And it is even stranger that our sugya of Gemara, on this saying that Rav said in regards to meat hidden from the eye, says that Rav did not say this saying explicitly but it was borne out from a story. Rav saw a man bathing the head of an animal in the river and it fell into the river. He brought a utensil and threw it into the water and brought up two heads. He wanted to eat both of them but Rav rebuked him and prohibited them. The Gemara pushes aside this proof and says that this is not a proof for in actual halacha they were prohibited because it happened in a place of Non-Jews where Treifos are more common than kosher ones, see there. We find throughout Shas when sayings like this aren’t said explicitly but are rather are borne out of proof from someplace else and it pushes off the proof, it voids the saying entirely. Here, it strangely does not void the saying because it asks afterwords how Rav would ever eat meat even in regard to Jews? See there.
Yoreh De'ah.87.17
It's forbidden to cook [meat] in a woman's milk because of Maris Ayin. If it fell into a [meat] dish, it is nullified and there is no need to measure, as written by the Rashba. The Rama writes on this, in paragraph 4 (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, Chapter 87): "And it appears that because of this, all the more so it is prohibited to cook [pure meat] in impure milk, or impure meat in pure milk, before the fact, specifically meat of domesticated mammals. But for fowl, which is only rabbinically prohibited, one need not worry [about Maris Ayin]." There are some that disagree on this, saying specifically, things that are permissible to eat one should be wary of Maris Ayin, where as one need not worry about something that is prohibited from eating. Furthermore, how can you prohibit a thing that the sages of the Talmud explicitly permitted [cooking impure meat in pure milk or pure meat in impure milk], and it's pushing it to say that this is only [permitted] in a place where there is no Maris Ayin. After all, all prohibitions based on Maris Ayin stand even in private rooms. Theoretically you could distinguish between the two, in any case, it's not sensible to say this. It's also pushing it to say that the mishnah and gemara neglected to discuss the prohibition of Maris Ayin. The Rashaba himself wrote in his writings that impure [meat or milk] are permissible to be cooked. However it's difficult to be lenient after the Rama said this. Obviously for healing, there is no need to worry at all.
Yoreh De'ah.89.6
And behold that the waiting of six hours is not clearly explained in the Gemara. As in the Gemara (Chullin 105a), it only said that one must wait from one meal to [another] meal. But the Rambam, the Rashba and the Tur explain that from one meal to [another] meal is six hours. However the Tosafot, the Mordekhai in the name of Raviah and the Hagahot Ashri explain it like its straightforward understanding, from one meal to another meal. So if he left the table [from a meat meal] and recited the grace after the meal, it is permitted to eat dairy. But there are some who wrote that there is a need to wait an hour, and that is one full twenty-fourth [of the day]. However without the grace after the meal, even if much time passed, it does not help.
Yoreh De'ah.98.17
17. And know that the disagreement between the Rambam, the Rashba, and the Tur that we wrote about in section 12 is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, Nazir chapter 1 and in the Babylonian Talmud, Erachin chapter 2, as the Rambam ruled there. Rabbi Zeira said: "Anyone who gives a reason, he is not lashed until he tastes the taste of the prohibition itself." Even if he did not taste the taste of the prohibition itself, Rabbi Ba bar Mamal said: "All those who give a reason, there is no prohibition, and the permitted and the prohibited are combined." A Mishnah supports this ruling, and so on. A Mishnah supports Rabbi Zeira's ruling regarding a case where a piece of the size of an olive of wine fell into a pot, and he ate from it a piece the size of an olive, and he is exempt until he eats the entire pot, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ba bar Mamal, since he ate a piece the size of an olive from it. He is liable for every piece of an olive from it only because the permitted is combined with the prohibited. But due to the reason as the main thing, he is not liable until he eats an olive's worth of the prohibited food, and we do not say that the permitted becomes entirely prohibited. This is the case regarding the reason as the main thing in Nazir, and similarly in every prohibition. What is the reason for the difference? Furthermore, since the Rashba wrote the same ruling based on the reason as the main thing, as Rashi stated in Pesachim 44b, "And if he ate a piece the size of a Pras of it, which is equivalent to four eggs, and so on, he is exempt." See there.
Yoreh De'ah.98.25
25. And our Rabbi the Rama wrote that nowadays we do not rely on estimation and everything is calculated based on sixty. There are several reasons for this according to the main law: Firstly, we must consider the opinion of Rashi that estimation is not effective unless it is significantly more than sixty. Secondly, since most of the halachic authorities agree that estimation is not necessary when dealing with sixty or more, and we only consider Rashi's opinion when dealing with less than sixty. This is also the opinion of the Ramban, the Rashba, and the RAN as we wrote in section 2. Additionally, there are concerns especially when relying on the word "like" (כמו) and kafeila (קפילא) which is not common in all places. Furthermore, according to what he ruled himself later, when it comes to the same type of things, we rely on the substance itself and not on the reason behind it, as will be explained later. Therefore, estimation is not applicable in this case, because estimation is only effective when it is based on a reason [and therefore, this raises questions in the Talmud when it relied on kafeila, and it can only be explained in cases where they were divided also in the reason and the substance].
Yoreh De'ah.98.26
26. Mixtures of a prohibited and permissible species of the same kind according to Torah law is nullified by majority. Some say according to the language of the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah we require a ratio of two permissible to one prohibited species for nullification. Similarly, in the language of the Talmud, in tractate Chullin, it states "one in two" is nullified, but this is not accurate, as this is the language used. In truth, if the permissible species outweighs the prohibited species by even a small amount, the prohibition is nullified by the majority. This was also decided by later authorities and is found in several places in the Talmud, where it says "and nullified by the majority." There are those who want to differentiate between liquid and solid mixtures, but this is not a fundamental disagreement, and anyone who does so is mistaken. According to Torah law, there is no distinction between liquid and solid mixtures of the same species, since the reason for nullification by majority is that the prohibited species does not contribute any taste to the mixture. It is only because the sages forbade solid mixtures that contain a taste of the prohibited species until they are sixty times the amount of the permissible species, as will be explained in chapter 109. However, regarding mixtures of the same species, the sages did not make such a decree for solid mixtures because they will never lead to a Torah prohibition. Nonetheless, the opinion of Tosafot in Pesachim (44a) is that even in mixtures of different species, also dry in dry solid mixtures are prohibited by Torah law until they are sixty times the amount of the prohibited species.
Yoreh De'ah.98.27
27. And the opinion of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, is that in every case of a mixture of the same species it is forbidden from the Torah even in a small measure, and this is because of what is written in Zevachum, 78a, Rabbi Judah and the sages disagreed about whether a species within its own kind is nullified or not. Rabbi Yehuda believed that a species within its own kind is not nullified, while the sages believed that it is nullified. Several Amoraim held the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while others held the opinion of the sages. Therefore, Rashi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion (Chullin 109). However, all of our Rabbis disagreed with him, and the halacha is in accordance with the sages' opinion. This is also the opinion of the Rambam in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot (15:18), as is implied by his words there. He explains that a species within its own kind is not nullified by Torah law, even dry with dry, which is not in accordance with the opinion of the Tur that we brought earlier. He also explains there that there are prohibitions, such as that of yein nesach and tevel, which are stricter than the prohibition of a species within its own kind. In the case of yein nesach, the stringency is due to the severity of the prohibition, and in the case of tevel, the reason is that it is considered like the meat of an unslaughtered animal. The Rambam also wrote that in the Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim (9:1), and this is also implied in our Talmud in Nedarim 59, that the reason why the prohibition of a species within its own kind is so strict is because one slaughtering permits the entire animal, and therefore the prohibition applies to all cases. The reason for the Rambam's opinion is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim (9:1), and the Tosafot there explain that both reasons are necessary.
Yoreh De'ah.98.28
28. The idea that the taste of a species with its own kind is nullified by a majority is explained in the Talmud (Menachot 22a). We derive from the service of Yom Kippur, as it is written, "And he shall take of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger upon the cover on the east side, and in front of the cover he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times" (Leviticus 16:14). It is well known that the blood of the bull is more plentiful than that of the goat, and therefore the Torah calls it the blood of the goat. From this, we can conclude that the blood of the bull does not nullify the blood of the goat. Rabbi Yitzchak infers from here that the taste of its species is not nullified, but the Rabbis hold that the reason is that all the sacrifices brought to the altar do not nullify each other due to its holiness. They explain that if the reason for not nullifying the taste is due to it being the same species, then the Torah should have taught us about a case that does not come to the altar. However, since the Torah taught about a case that does come to the altar, we can infer that even the taste of its species is nullified. The Talmud implies that the Sages learned from this verse that similar kinds are nullified, and so too does the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol in his commentary on the positive commandments (mitzvah #138) and the Rashba in his work on the laws of the Temple (Beit HaBechirah, Shaar Aleph).
Yoreh De'ah.98.29
29. However, Rashi, may his memory be a blessing, wrote the reason as "after the majority" to indicate [in the case of mixing forbidden and permitted foods] [Beitzah 3b; Chullin 98b] and so did Tosafot in Avodah Zarah [67], and the Rosh in Chulin [7:37]. And these are his words, that the decree of the verse is that it is written "after the majority" to indicate that if one part of a mixture is nullified in the majority, the prohibition is transformed into permission and it is permitted to eat them even if they are all mixed together. And the Rabbis added a stringency [by not relying on nullification in the majority] as explained elsewhere. However, in my humble opinion, the matter is not understood at all. What is the connection between "after the majority" and mixing forbidden and permitted foods? In Chulin [11a], we learn from "after the majority" to mean according to the majority, as we find in Sanhedrin and the nine stores. It is obvious in Sanhedrin that the minority is nullified as if it does not exist, since the minority says the opposite of the majority, and these two things cannot coexist. But here [in the case of mixing foods], both exist in the world. And similarly with the nine stores, we say that what is found is from the majority, and there are no non-kosher animals here. But if non-kosher animals were nullified among the kosher animals, it would be derived from what is learned throughout the Talmud, that we follow the majority and there is no prohibition here. What does this have to do with mixing? And granted, according to the opinion of the Rashba that will be explained in Siman 109, it is forbidden to eat them all together, but we can say that we rely on the fact that whoever eats from it relies on the majority, and regarding the last one [in the mixture] we say that it is from the majority and the prohibition has already been eaten, as will be explained there. But the Rosh permits eating them all together, and that the prohibition has been transformed into permission, and it is not possible to explain our Sages as compelling [to any of these opinions].
Yoreh De'ah.98.30
30. It seems to me that the main point of the drasha is not from the blood of the bull and goat, but because in the Gemara they challenged the Rabbis saying that we should say "until there is a species within its own species", and this is difficult. This means that perhaps even if they are of the same species, if they are brought as offerings separately they nullify each other, but if they are brought together they do not nullify each other. This was accepted by the Geonim, that no matter what the Gemara says, a difficulty is not an absolute difficulty. Similarly, with the "balah" (animal that dies naturally) we should be precise with the Rabbis, how to learn from here that an animal of its own species nullifies it. The Torah needed to teach us that two offerings of the same species do not nullify each other, but it is not necessary to say the opposite, that even without offerings they nullify each other. And there is no reason to learn from here that offerings of different species nullify each other, because according to the Rabbis all offerings are of the same species, as will be explained. And also, the main lesson of Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis from this verse needs to be understood - doesn't the Torah command us to do so? So what new teaching does this verse come to teach us?
Yoreh De'ah.98.31
31. Therefore, it seems that our sages were precise in their wording when they said that it should have been written "and take from the blood of the bull and the goat," and yet it is written "and from the blood of the goat," to teach us that one should not think that the blood of the goat is nullified in the blood of the bull. Therefore, we need to understand why we have a lesson on this and why the Torah needed to state it explicitly, as it is not sufficient to say that it is not nullified, since this is already known. Rather, this is included in another category of cases, where the Torah wanted to emphasize that it is not nullified, as it is important for many halachic rulings. Here we have two things that we need to consider in what is not nullified: the first is that it is of the same type as the other thing, meaning that two equal things add to each other's strength and are not nullified, as the Ran explains in Nedarim 52a. The second is that both are equal in their holiness and both are permissible, and we could say that specifically when these two things are together, they are not nullified, but separately, one may nullify the other, as the Gemara states in Zevachim regarding the Rabbanan and Rabbi Yehuda. However, there is another interpretation in Zevachim 81a that explains that this is referring to sacrificial offerings, and if other sacred blood is mixed with it, it is still permitted. Therefore, it is possible that there is another interpretation to teach us that even if one of them is not related to the other, it is not nullified, and only when both are not related to each other, like different species or different sacrificial offerings, it would be nullified, as Tosafot explains in Kiddushin. See there.
Yoreh De'ah.112.15
...The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state.
Yoreh De'ah.112.16
The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state.
Yoreh De'ah.112.17
The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state.
Yoreh De'ah.112.18
The Bet Yosef writes that when a Jewish baker is not found, one may buy bread from a non Jewish bakery. If there is a Jewish baker that comes to town, then the non jewish bakery is no longer permitted. However, once the bread is brought from the non-Jewish Baker in a permitted fashion (ie no Jewish baker is in town) it is permitted even when a Jewish baker arrives before one consumed the bread from the non Jewish bakery. The reason that the bread is permitted, is that when the bread was bought it was in a permitted state, once permitted it does not return to a prohibited state.
Yoreh De'ah.114.13
All of these beverages that we've discussed - this permissibility is only if there is no concern of an admixture of wine, such as beer or honey-drink, and other similar beverages. But types of beverages that there might be a concern of an admixture of wine - such as apple-wine or pomegranate-wine and other similar drinks - if they are in a place where wine is cheaper or even if it's not cheaper, but the beverages are improved through the addition of wine (Priest’s Lips §6) - if there's only this concern, then it is forbidden to buy it from a gentile until it is known that there is no admixture of wine. And even if there is an admixture of wine, but know that the wine is nullified 1 in 60 parts, then it is also permissible. And there are those who say that it doesn't require 60, but that it is sufficient to have a 1:6 ratio, as it is written in Section 134 of the Shulhan Arukh that wine in water is nullified 1:6 and this is the rule with other beverages (Gold Rows §4), although the first opinion opines that it is only nullified in water 1:6, but requires 60 parts in other beverages (Abraham's Shield Section 204 §16).
Yoreh De'ah.115.7
And our Rabbi the Rama wrote: And ideally one must be the Israelite at the beginning of the milking and he will see in the vessel that there will not be in the vessel that they milk with a ritually impure thing. And they accustomed to be stringent that he will not milk in a vessel that the non-Jew's way is to milk in it, perhaps there remained in it traces of their milk. However, after the fact one does not need to worry about all this. End of his words. Explanation of his words: That when there is no ritually impure thing in his herd, they were lenient that it is permissible when the Israelite sits from outside. But ideally he must be the Israelite at the beginning of the milking and to see in the vessel that there is not in it ritually impure milk. For since they prohibited because of this concern, it is automatically necessary to worry also in the vessel. And this is by law. But they accustomed to be stringent also in this, that even the Israelite should not milk in the vessel designated for them for milking, even though he sees that there is nothing in it, because of concern for traces of ritually impure milk, even though this is merely a trace. And therefore it is necessary to rinse it well with water. And by law there is no concern in this, for even if there are traces of milk, it will be nullified in sixty. However, after the fact one does not need to worry about all this. And not only in what they accustomed, but even if the Israelite was not at the beginning of the milking and did not see in the vessel, but he sat for himself from outside, it is permissible since there is no ritually impure thing in his herd. But when there is a ritually impure thing in his herd, it helps nothing, only when he saw from the beginning of the milking until its end [Avodah Zarah SK 4 and Shach SK 8]. And also in this permission the later authorities doubt, and their opinion is that even when there is no ritually impure thing in his herd, he must see the beginning of the milking [there]. And it seems to me even according to their words if the matter is difficult to stand at the beginning of the milking, as I saw that there are those who are careful about this because of an evil eye, they can even ideally rely on the sitting of the Israelite from outside, since there is no ritually impure thing in his herd. For this is better than after the fact since it is impossible in another way, and from the essence of the law there is no concern at all in this.
Yoreh De'ah.121.26
And this is the language of the Tur: The Ittur writes that were I not afraid of other rabbis I would say that even a earthenware pot that has not been used for 24 hours since it is only a rabbinic prohibition to cook with it, can be kashered through immersion in boiling water three times and this is sufficient. And the Ittur brings proof from the Yerushalmi (Terumot 11:4). And the Rashba writes teh same thing and concludes his words by saying that perhaps this is only permissible with a rabbinic prohibition that has no basis in a Torah prohibition like Terumah or Challah outside of Israel in our times or with bishul akum (food cooked by Gentiles) but for other rabbinic prohibitions that do have a Torah basis they were strict just as with Torah prohibitions and it is appropriate to be concerns and not be lenient. All of the above is the language of the Tur. And so this leniency is entirely unmentioned in the Shulhan Arukh except for a reference in Siman 113 regarding bisul akum (food cooked by Gentiles) see there. And the Rashba in Torah haBayit discusses this at great threngh and writes that whenit comes to the strict law it appears to him that all rabbinic prohibitions should be permissible under these circumstances as the RaSh HaTzarfati writes and see there. And the Tur didn't bring the end of the Rashba's words because he was of the opinion that one should not be lenient in this way in a practical fashion. And, heaven forfend we should not violate the opinion of the Tur and Shulhan Arukh, however this is very puzzling since the Yerushalmi in Pesachim (3:1) says that when it comes to Hametz, which certainly has a foundation in Torah and the Yerushalmi there says: Rabbi Yirmiyah saidi n the name of Rav, a pot in which hametz was cooked should not be used for the same type of food until after Pesach, but a different food can be cooked in that pot even on Pesach if three items were cooked in between. And the commentator has already raised this question.
Yoreh De'ah.197.8
..
Yoreh De'ah.197.9
9. Regarding the laws of a zavah, she is permitted to immerse even on the seventh day, and there is no need to wait until nightfall. Although if she sees blood until nightfall, she conceals everyone who is clean, as mentioned in Siman (Chapter) 196. However, from the perspective of immersion, it is allowed to immerse, as it is written: "And she shall count for herself seven days, and after that, she may be purified" (Leviticus 15:28). Once her counting is completed, she becomes pure [Rashi, Pesachim 90b]. On the seventh day, her counting is complete. If she truly sees blood, she conceals, and both the counting and purification are nullified. Thus, she is as if she did not immerse, and she needs other clean individuals and another immersion. However, for a Niddah, her immersion is nothing until nightfall. After the seven days of her menstruation, as it is written: "For seven days, she shall be in her menstrual impurity; and on the eighth day, she shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:19). It is meant to be understood that throughout these seven days until their completion, she is in her menstrual impurity. If she immerses, her immersion is nothing, and, therefore, she must necessarily immerse at night after the seven days of her menstruation. Regarding a woman who has given birth, she is compared to a Niddah. As it is written: "Like the days of her menstrual impurity, she shall be impure" (Leviticus 12:2). This applies only in her designated time. However, if it is not in her designated time, for example, on the day after the eighth day, she may immerse during the day or night, as the seven days of her impurity have already concluded [Siman 196, Shulchan Aruch].
Yoreh De'ah.197.10
10. All of the aforementioned is according to Torah law, but the Sages prohibited a woman experiencing abnormal uterine bleeding (Zavah) from immersing on the seventh day lest it lead to confusion. Perhaps her husband might mistakenly assume that, since she immersed, she is already pure, and he may have relations with her during the day. Later, if she sees blood, she will conceal it from those who are clean, nullifying the immersion. Consequently, it would seem that she immersed, became pure, and subsequently had relations while being a Zavah, which incurs the severe penalty of Karet. Therefore, she may not immerse until nightfall [Niddah 57b]. Similarly, the Sages prohibited a Niddah from immersing on the seventh day when it is not her designated time. Even though it is permitted according to Torah law, the Sages were concerned that she might be confused. For instance, if a woman, such as her daughter or relative, immerses on the seventh day, and the Niddah does not distinguish between the seventh day and other days, she may come to immerse on the seventh day of her own impurity. Since immersion during her designated time is meaningless, the Sages forbade a Niddah from immersing on the seventh day, even when it is not her designated time, during the day. They permitted immersion only at night. This is explained in the Talmud [Niddah 57b], which states: "Whether during her designated time or not during her designated time, a Niddah does not immerse except at night, because of the proximity of her daughter," as we explained. It is not specifically limited to her daughter; this is self-evident.
Yoreh De'ah.197.11
11.
Yoreh De'ah.240.41
It is written further there: If the son knows that his father and mother are disappointed by what he has chosen to fast over – he may not undertake a fast that is not obligatory. And a father that was sick, and the doctors ordered that he should not eat this certain food or he should not drink this certain drink, and the father requested that his son give this to him – the son does not give this to him. And even if the father says to him “I will not forgive you if you do not give this to me” – the son should not take any notice of him. Since the doctors had warned him about it – it is impossible to give it to him. And if the mother commanded something of her son, and the father asked the son, “What did she say to you?”, and the son knows that telling him the truth will make him angry at her – he should not tell him what she commanded. It is permitted to depart from the truth in a matter that will bring peace.
Yoreh De'ah.245.9
One must hire a tutor for their son unless they are teaching them themselves...But the son of one's fellow - one is not obligated to pay for him on his own, but rather the community of residents is to make a Talmud Torah, as I have written. And we force him to pay his son's teacher. And if the father is out of town and has means, if we can, we inform him that he needs to pay, and if we can't inform, we take from his account and hire a tutor for his son .And for one's grandson, great-grandson - we force him to pay for his studies when he is able to and the child's parents are not able to, or if he doesn't have parents...And thus, we force all city residents to establish/maintain a Talmud Torah, to place tutors there to teach the poor and orphan children. And we force this that everyone should give a donation or from the communal fund. And every city that does not have a Talmud Torah - it's end will be in destruction and we should separate from it...And this was the custom across all of Israel - that there would be Talmud Torah schools, and the poor and orphan kids would go there, and the school would feed and dress the kids until they matured.
Yoreh De'ah.245.10
And lest he say: Since every city has a general Talmud Torah, if so, how could it be that a father is forced to hire a tutor for his son? Behold! The father will say, "My son will go to the Talmud Torah since I am supporting it with Tzedakah, let me son go there!" And the answer to this: Certainly, when the father is poor, he can say this. But average joes and all the more so, rich people - they cannot have their children go to the Talmud Torahs unless they give a lot of money. This is good for the poor kids, according to the assessment of the collectors. But without this extra money, we do not allow them, for if these chiildren come to the Talmud Torah, there will not be enough space for teh poor kids. And this we teach and bring Halacha L'Maaseh.
Yoreh De'ah.282.1
Conducting Honor with a Torah Scroll and the Law of Its Use • Containing 23 Pargraphs A kosher Torah scroll requires exceptional sanctity and great honor. A person is obligated to treat a Torah scroll with great respect. It is a mitzvah to designate a special place for it and to honor and beautify that place, keeping it clean and elegant. Whoever honors the Torah—their body is honored by people. One must not spit toward a Torah scroll, expose oneself before it, extend one's legs toward it, place it on one's head like a burden, or turn one's back to it unless it is elevated ten handbreadths above oneself. Rather, one should bow before the Torah scroll with gravity, in awe, fear, and trembling, for it is the faithful witness over all who enter the world, as it says: "And it shall be there as a witness." For the sake of the Torah, the world was created, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights in His holy and pure Torah. Therefore, one must honor it with all one's strength.
Yoreh De'ah.282.2
Do not be surprised that during a sermon the preacher stands facing the people with his back to the Holy Ark, since when the Torah scroll is placed in the Ark it is considered another domain (Taz). Moreover, this itself is honoring the Torah—preaching about the Torah and its commandments. The Torah itself commanded something similar, such as in the priestly blessing where the priests face the people. The Torah decreed this, as stated in Sotah (38a): "Thus shall you bless"—face to face. Here too, the Torah decreed to teach God's statutes and laws, and it is necessary to preach face to face. The Midrash states: "Come and see how great is the honor of the community, that the sage who preaches faces them..."
Yoreh De'ah.282.3
One who sees a Torah scroll being carried must stand before it. That is, whether sitting—one must stand; whether walking and the Torah scroll passes before them—one must stand until the Torah scroll has passed. When sitting and standing for the Torah scroll, one should not sit until the one carrying it has stopped and the Torah scroll has reached its place. But standing to rest is not considered standing. Or until the one carrying the Torah scroll is hidden from their eyes. The Rema wrote in section 2 that one who hears the voice of the one carrying a Torah scroll, even if not seeing it, must stand. This refers to when there are bells that chime and make sound. This is permitted on Shabbat, as I wrote in Orach Chaim 339. Although some question this because of making sound (Taz), nevertheless the practice is lenient. (In Orach Chaim there, the Taz himself in subsection 3 leans toward leniency, see there.)
Yoreh De'ah.282.4
Some say one need not be strict to stand upon hearing the sound of the one carrying a Torah scroll. And indeed, the practice is not to be strict about this (Beit Yosef and Shach). In our community, I believe the practice is to be strict and stand, and this is proper. There is support for this from Kiddushin (31b), see there. For a disqualified Torah scroll, one need not stand, nor for chumashim and gemara. Only for a Torah scroll written properly on kosher parchment, written with the sanctity of a Torah scroll, without errors, as given at Sinai—one is obligated to stand. For books of Prophets, even if written properly on parchment and for the sake of sanctity, and for the Five Scrolls—one is not obligated to stand. Even though they are holy, this honor is only for the Torah alone. (See Nedarim 22b: "If they had not sinned...")
Yoreh De'ah.282.5
I have some doubt regarding Simchat Torah during the hakafot, when all the Torah scrolls are taken from the Ark and not returned until after all the circuits are completed, only being passed from hand to hand. It would seem forbidden to sit until they are returned to the Ark, yet this is not the practice. It is also a great burden, as sometimes this lasts about two hours. It seems to me in my humble opinion that when they circle with the Torah scrolls around the bimah, one is obligated to stand, for this is like the Torah scroll passing. But between circuits, when they hold the Torah scrolls in their hands—they need not stand, for then it is like the Torah scroll is in its place, and when it is at rest in its place, certainly one need not stand before it.
Yoreh De'ah.282.6
If one was traveling from place to place with a Torah scroll, if walking on foot—hold it against one's heart, and not sling it behind. If riding on a horse or donkey—do not place it in a sack and put it on the donkey and ride on it over the sack, for then one would be sitting on the Torah scroll. Rather, place it in one's bosom against one's heart while riding the donkey. If afraid of thieves, it is permitted to sling the sack behind. Some permit even sitting on it in a case of danger. This is difficult to permit, unless there is absolutely no other way (see Shach). If traveling in a wagon—hide it in a box and stand the box in the wagon, and do not sit on the box. Similarly, when transporting it in a railway car—stand it on the shelf made in the car above the seating area, or at least in the place where one sits. Heaven forbid to stand it on the ground beneath the seating area. One must be extremely, extremely careful about this.
Yoreh De'ah.282.7
It is taught in Tractate Soferim (3:11): A person should not slip a Torah scroll from his lap and remove it, as this shows disrespect. Nor should he place it on his knees and rest his arm on it while reading... Nor should he place it on a chair with it hanging (meaning the parchments hang outside the chair) and read as one reads documents. For one does not treat books disrespectfully. Rather, hold it in one's hands with awe and read from it. This applies to one reading alone, for in public reading all this is not applicable, obviously. Only "not to rest one's arm on it" applies even in public, and one must be careful about this. (What is taught there earlier: "Do not grasp the folds..." and "Do not place tefillin in the lap..."—I do not understand, and I do not know the meaning. See there.)
Yoreh De'ah.282.8
It is customary to fast when one sees a Torah scroll fall to the ground, Heaven forbid. Even if it fell in its mantle, the custom is to fast (Magen Avraham, end of section 44). Not only the person from whose hand it fell, but all those standing there. It is written in Sefer Chasidim: Whoever prevents bringing a Torah scroll into the Holy Ark—the Torah cries out against his soul... Therefore, one must be careful when one is honored with some honor involving the Torah scroll not to refuse, Heaven forbid, lest one be punished. In the name of Recanati it is written: When a Torah scroll is carried from one synagogue to another—ten people should walk with the Torah scroll to honor it. Know that the obligation to stand for a Torah scroll applies even when occupied with a mitzvah, even when studying Torah. For they said at the beginning of Megillah: Individual Torah study is light. Individual honor of Torah is weighty, see there. All the more so the honor of the Torah itself, which is greater than its students, as stated in the first chapter of Kiddushin (33b): If we stand before its students—before it, all the more so!
Yoreh De'ah.282.9
A person should not hold a Torah scroll and enter with it into a bathroom or bathhouse. Similarly, a cemetery is forbidden. Not because of disrespect, but because of "mocking the poor." Even if wrapped in cloths and placed in its case, one should not enter any of these places until distanced four cubits from the corpse, cemetery, or bathroom. Within four cubits it is forbidden to read from the Torah scroll. It is obvious that from the bathroom one must distance four cubits from where the odor ends. Whether bathroom partitions help was explained in Orach Chaim 83 (see there in Taz and Magen Avraham). It is forbidden to hold a Torah scroll without a cloth. Thus our Sages said (Shabbat 14a): Whoever holds a Torah scroll naked will be buried naked, see there. The meaning is: naked of that mitzvah he performed. Therefore, one must be careful when called to the Torah not to place one's hand on the Torah scroll unless wrapping one's hand in one's tallit. Whether it is permitted to grasp the wooden handles of a Torah scroll with bare hands—the great later authorities in Orach Chaim 147 disagreed. The world's custom is to permit, and one of the great authorities ruled this way with clear proofs (Noda B'Yehuda, Orach Chaim 7).

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