Arukh HaShulchan

Sefaria · Halakhah · 221 sections

Yoreh De'ah.282.10
Amulets, if covered with leather, may be brought into the bathroom. If not, it is forbidden. It seems to me that printed books, whether Written Torah or Oral Torah, and all books of legal authorities, responsa, and ethical works—it is forbidden to bring them into the bathroom even placed in a case, even wrapped in a cloth. They are not comparable to amulets, which are sewn in leather and never meant to be opened. Moreover, regarding amulets our Sages doubted their very sanctity (Shabbat 61b). The Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch who wrote regarding a Torah scroll "even if wrapped in a cloth it is forbidden to bring it into the bathroom"—the same applies to other books, but since the source is from Sanhedrin (21b), which discusses a Torah scroll... If not, we would deduce that even without a cloth it is permitted, since the gemara doesn't mention a cloth at all, see there. But certainly there is no proof from this. I saw one of the great later authorities deduce from this that other books are permitted with a cloth (Magen Avraham, end of section 43). In my humble opinion, this requires study. He compares it to leather stitching of an amulet, see there. But this is not a valid comparison, as I wrote.
Yoreh De'ah.282.11
One may not throw sacred writings (Eruvin 98a). When giving them to a friend, do not give by throwing, but hand them directly. Even halachot and aggadot—it is forbidden to throw them because of disrespect. It is forbidden to turn them face down. When one finds an upside-down book, turn it so it is positioned properly. Similarly, it is forbidden to stand it upside down with the letter tops downward. When finding it standing upside down, turn it and stand it properly. If a book falls to the ground, one is immediately obligated to pick it up. Even if studying, stop and pick it up. The custom is to pick it up and kiss it.
Yoreh De'ah.282.12
It is forbidden to sit on a bed or bench upon which a Torah scroll is placed, unless it is placed on another object at least one handbreadth high (see Beit Yosef). It is proper to be strict that the Torah scroll's place should be ten handbreadths higher than oneself, and not less than three handbreadths, for less than this is not considered height (Beit Yosef). This is a measure of piety. Strictly speaking, one handbreadth suffices, as explained in the Yerushalmi and authorities (Shach). All the more so it is forbidden to place it on the ground. This applies not only to a Torah scroll, but the same for all sacred writings. One should not sit level with them, but elevated one handbreadth is certainly permitted. It is written that this is not during beit midrash time. But during beit midrash time when space is tight, they may sit level with the books, for there is no other way (ibid.). One who is strict even in this—this is praiseworthy (ibid.). Similarly, on the steps before the Holy Ark, one should not place books, since people walk on them they are like the ground. A person should not place a Torah scroll on his knees with both his arms upon it, as I wrote in section 7. The same applies to other books. It is permitted to sit on a chest containing books. Some require that the chest not be designated for books (see Pitchei Teshuva citing Teshuvat Shevut). It seems to me that the current custom of making chests in synagogue seating areas to sit upon is considered not designated solely for that purpose. Even though the chest is only for storing tefillin and books, nevertheless the upper opening which is the board they sit upon is made for sitting. All the more so if there is a handbreadth space until the tefillin and books, certainly it is permitted. This is the widespread custom. (The Taz permits when attached to the wall. This is our practice.)
Yoreh De'ah.282.13
It is customary to stand when the Holy Ark is opened for any prayer, as is customary on the High Holy Days, and similarly on other days of the year when the Ark is opened for any prayer. Certainly by law one need not stand, since the Torah scroll is in its place. But since this is the custom to honor the Torah, consequently one who does not stand is lacking in honoring the Torah, and therefore it is necessary to stand. However, if one is weak in the legs and would not be suspected—it is permitted to sit.
Yoreh De'ah.282.14
A room that has a Torah scroll in it—one may not use one's bed there until removing it from the room. If there is no other place to remove it—make a partition ten handbreadths high before it, for the entire length of the Torah scroll with the Ark, so the partition protrudes from the Ark's sides. Even though with tefillin it is permitted when placed in a vessel within a vessel, as explained in Orach Chaim 40, and similarly with other sacred writings, nevertheless with a Torah scroll, because of its great sanctity and the obligation to honor it, this was not permitted except through a permanent partition for that time. Not to hang a curtain or sheet before it, unless tying the sheet's edges to something. If not, it is like a partition that can be blown by wind, and is not a partition. Similarly, a partition with large holes like windows is not a partition (see Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim 240). The Rambam in chapter 10, law 7, permits even for a Torah scroll with a vessel within a vessel, and the second vessel is not the Torah scroll's vessel according to the laws explained in Orach Chaim 40. Therefore, if one spread one's tallit over the chest in which it is placed, it is considered vessel within vessel. All the Rishonim disagreed with him, and hold that this was only permitted for tefillin, chumashim, and other sacred writings, but not for a Torah scroll. The law follows the majority. (See Pitchei Teshuva citing Chavot Yair permitting on the night of immersion in a room with books, see there. This requires great study, and in my humble opinion should not be permitted, and it is necessary to cover them with two coverings. If standing on shelves against the wall without a chest, cover them also with two coverings, or a covering ten handbreadths long which is perhaps like a partition regarding books. That the books stand above ten handbreadths does not help. Also what is written there citing Peri Megadim, that in a room open to a house containing a Torah scroll or books it is forbidden to use one's bed, see there—these too are puzzling words, since it is a separate room. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)
Yoreh De'ah.282.15
All ritually impure people, even menstruating women, are permitted to hold a Torah scroll and read from it. For words of Torah do not receive impurity, as it is written: "Are not My words like fire, says God"—just as fire does not receive impurity, so too words of Torah (Berachot 22a). For this reason it was explained in Orach Chaim 88 that all ritually impure people are permitted to study, recite Shema, and pray. Only for one who experienced seminal emission was there Ezra's decree requiring immersion for study and prayer, but not regarding touching a Torah scroll. All the more so for chumashim and other sacred books. Even this immersion requirement was abolished, as I wrote there. Only they should see that their hands are not dirty or soiled. Similarly, if they touched their flesh in covered places or scratched their heads, then they are forbidden to touch sacred writings, all the more so a Torah scroll, until they wash their hands. There is explained the customs of menstruating women regarding prayer and going to synagogue, see there.
Yoreh De'ah.282.16
Our Sages said in Megillah (26b) that a Torah scroll that is worn out or completely disqualified and cannot be repaired—place it in an earthenware vessel that has long durability, and bury them next to a Torah scholar, and this is its burial. The Torah scholar is even one who only studies laws (Shach). It is obvious that the earthenware vessel requires covering its opening with something actual, like wood or stone and the like. Similarly with tefillin that are worn and disqualified, do the same. Other printed sacred books that are worn and torn—also place them in earthenware vessels or other vessels and bury them in a concealed place in the cemetery. But to burn them is forbidden. (See Knesset HaGedolah citing Shevut Yaakov who wanted to permit burning them, but he disagreed. This is correct, and this is the widespread custom.) Similarly, Torah scroll covers that are worn out need to be buried as they are. It is even better if possible to make them into shrouds for a met mitzvah, meaning a worthy person who died, and this is their burial (Beit Yosef; see Taz and Shach). See what I wrote in Orach Chaim 154:8.
Yoreh De'ah.282.17
All accessories of sanctity have sanctity in them and require burial when they become damaged. Therefore, a case prepared for a Torah scroll and used for it—for without being used, designation alone is not meaningful; similarly the covers, the Ark, and the tower, which is the table upon which the Torah scroll is placed when reading from it, even though the Torah scroll is not placed in the Ark alone but when in its case; similarly the chair prepared for placing a Torah scroll upon it after the reading, or when there are two Torah scrolls and one was placed on it—all are accessories of sanctity and forbidden for secular use. After they wear out or break, they are buried. But the bimah upon which the cantor, reader, and one holding the scroll stand does not have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. But it has the sanctity of a synagogue.
Yoreh De'ah.282.18
The fundamental laws were explained in Orach Chaim 153-154. There it is explained that it is forbidden to lower from greater sanctity to lesser sanctity. Therefore, an Ark that broke—it is permitted to make another smaller one from it. But it is forbidden to make from it a chair for a Torah scroll, as this lowers its sanctity. A chair that broke—it is permitted to make a smaller chair from it. It is forbidden to make from it a footstool, meaning a small bench for placing one's feet when sitting on the chair. But conversely, to change from lesser sanctity to greater sanctity is permitted. There are explained several detailed laws about this, see there.
Yoreh De'ah.282.19
Not only accessories of sanctity that are necessary for using with the Torah scroll, like the Ark and table and the like. But even things made merely for adornment of the Torah scroll also have the sanctity of Torah scroll accessories. Therefore the Beit Yosef wrote in section 16: Silver and gold apples made for a Torah scroll for adornment are accessories of sanctity. It is forbidden to take them out for secular use, except to purchase with them a Torah scroll or chumash. The Rambam in chapter 10, law 4, states, see there. As he wrote at the end of chapter 11 of Prayer, that sanctity leaves them only through money, etc. The money should be used for sanctity greater than or equal to it.
Yoreh De'ah.282.20
From his language it seems that even if they belong to an individual, it is also forbidden, all the more so if they belong to the community. Specifically when they were not sold by the seven communal leaders in the presence of the townspeople. But when sold by the seven communal leaders in the presence of the townspeople, it is permitted to sell them even for lesser sanctity, even to use the money for secular communal needs. Similarly, if made initially on condition to use for other purposes—the condition is effective. For anything that is for Torah scroll accessories—a condition is effective. There is no distinction between individual and communal.
Yoreh De'ah.282.21
Thus according to the Rambam, without a condition even for an individual's Torah scroll, it is forbidden to lower its accessories from their sanctity, and similarly with their monetary value. But the Rosh's view is that an individual who sells his Torah scroll and its accessories may use the money even for secular things, and only with communal property is it forbidden. This is the Tur's language: My father the Rosh wrote: Therefore an individual who sold his Torah scroll may use the money, for it is like it was sold by the seven communal leaders. Accordingly, the apples' owners can sell them, and the buyer can do with them whatever he wishes (see Beit Yosef). The Rema wrote in section 18 that a Torah scroll that had errors in it—according to all opinions it is permitted, for it only has the sanctity of chumashim. I do not understand: for do chumashim not have sanctity? They do not have the sanctity of a Torah scroll, but they still have sanctity. (Does this too require seven communal leaders, as the Taz wrote, see there?) If so, according to the Rambam it is forbidden even for an individual. One must say that he holds the Rambam only forbids with a Torah scroll. I found that one of the Shulchan Aruch's commentators struggled with this in Orach Chaim 153 (Magen Avraham). This requires study. One should not sell a Torah scroll by public announcement.
Yoreh De'ah.282.22
Something with lesser sanctity should not be placed upon something with greater sanctity, but conversely is permitted. Similarly with equal sanctity, it is permitted to place one upon the other, for otherwise where would a place be found to place them all? Therefore, it is permitted to place a Torah scroll upon a Torah scroll, and all similar cases. Chumashim are placed upon Prophets, for the sanctity of chumashim is greater than Prophets. It seems to me this refers to chumashim written on parchment for the sanctity of a Torah scroll, except divided into five books, and they do not have complete Torah scroll sanctity for public reading. Even though the sanctity is the same, nevertheless because of communal honor one should not read from chumashim (Gittin 60a). But when not written for the sanctity of a Torah scroll, all the more so when written on paper, and certainly with printed chumashim—their sanctity equals Prophets and all sacred writings. I found support for my words from the source of the law in Megillah (27a), for Rashi explained there: "Chumashim—a Torah scroll that has only one book." The Ran also wrote there: "We place... each book by itself made with the proper form of a Torah scroll." Another proof from the Rema's words in section 283, as we will explain there with Heaven's help. One does not place Prophets upon a Torah scroll. Chumashim written with Torah scroll sanctity and Prophets and Writings—their sanctity is equal regarding placing one upon the other. All this is with two bindings, but when bound as one, everything is permitted, for this is not called placing one upon the other. (See Ran in Megillah there and in the gemara. This requires some study, and can be resolved. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)
Yoreh De'ah.282.23
One who studies from a book and wishes to elevate it — it is forbidden to place another book underneath it, for this is a degradation, as he makes the second book like a footstool. Unless the second book was already lying in that place, in which case the matter is not noticeable (Taz Seif Katan 13). And if he needs several books for his study — it is permitted to place them one upon the other (ibid.), for such is the manner of study. Similarly, one may not place a book inside another book as a bookmark (ibid.), unless he is using both of them for his study. And likewise, to conceal Torah insights inside a book — this is permitted, for it is not a degradation to the book. The room in which books are kept — does not have holiness (Beit Yosef in Beit David HaLevi). But a cabinet that is made for books, and one has placed books in it — has the sanctity of service. And likewise shelves that are made to stand books upon, and one has stood books upon them — have the sanctity of service. And it has already been explained in siman 246 that it is forbidden to contemplate words of Torah in unclean places, see there.
Even HaEzer._.21.8
One may not send regards to a woman whatsoever, even by means of a messenger, and even by means of her husband it is forbidden to send her regards, but it is permitted to ask her husband of her welfare. And the reason that one may not send regards to a woman is because maybe through sending her regards, even through a messenger, they will become acquainted with one another and come to affection [Rashi]. And according to this, the prohibition is only with sending regards that causes mental closeness and love, but to say "good morning" or the like - it seems that it isn't forbidden. And to ask someone else how a certain woman is doing, some say that this is only allowed by means of her husband and not by means of anyone else [Chelkat Mechokek], and some permit it [Bach]. And to ask a woman about the welfare of another woman is allowed [Maharsha]; and there are those who want to forbid this because the voice of a woman is nakedness, but that isn't seemly, because normal speech isn't prohibited with women, only a sweet voice where the listener benefits from it. And to write in a letter "send regards to your spouse" or "and tell your wife greetings" - it is prohibited, because this is sending regards through her husband, but to ask about her welfare in a letter - it is permitted, because he is asking her husband how she is faring. And as to his daughter and his daughter-in-law and his sister - it seems that it isn't forbidden whatsoever to send regards to them because causing mental closeness isn't pertinent, because it is the way of the land that a father sends regards to his children, and it is an obligation on him, and likewise a brother to his sister. And the bottom line of these concepts is that everything is dependent on astuteness and fear of heaven, and if his impulses are submissive and compliant to him and nothing gets aroused in his heart whatsoever - there isn't a concern about sending regards [Ritva], and therefore we found by Elisha that he said to his attendant "run now to call her and tell her 'peace to you'", although from there there is no proof, because everything was done because of (prophetic) speech, for he was a prophet.
Even HaEzer._.126.17
Elul is written 'full,' meaning that the vav is added because this is how it appears in the Book of Nechemia chapter 6 and in the Mishnah at the beginning of tractate Rosh Hashanah. In the ninth chapter of Bechorot Tishre is written with one yud at the end of it and not more, and it is also written so in the Mishnah there. Marcheshvan is written with one vav as it is found in the Mishnah, and in the first chapter of the gemara Ta'anit as well as elsewhere. If one writes is simply as Cheshvan this is legitimate because that is what people call the month and that is how it is printed in calendars and people will not be led astray. It appears to me that if Cheshvan is written with two vavs it is also a legitimate spelling because the extra letter does not change the pronunciation and will not lead people astray. One must write Marcheshvan as a single word and if it is written as two words - Mar Cheshvan - I am in doubt that it is legitimate. Even if one says that this is acceptable, I am still in doubt in a case when Mar is written at the end of one line and Cheshvan at the beginning of the next. It appears to me that Mar is its own word meaning, as some people explain, that the rains fall in this month and Mar refers to raindrops as it is written "The nations are but a drop in a bucket..." (Isaiah 40:15) One could also say that in the Jerusalem Talmud (chapter 1, halacha 2) and in midrash Bereshit 48 it teaches that the names of the months were brought by the returnees from the Babylonian exile. Therefore one could say that they made this month a remembrance for the beginning of the sins which led to exile that itself began with the ten northern tribes and only afterward continued withe Judah and Benjamin. The 'chief sinner' was Yerovam ben Nevat who switched the seventh and eight months of the calendar, as it says in the Book of Kings (I Kings 12:32-33). Mar in Aramaic means 'switch,' which would make Marcheshvan a reference to switching Cheshvan and Tishre, the seventh and eight months. There is also a hint here thaht this change cause bitterness (marirut) to all of Israel. Despite all this, in truth we do not expound the meaning of the names of the month in a definitive fashion and therefore if Marcheshvan is written as two words or on two line this is a doubtful case despite the fact that I am inclined to permit it. If, Gd forbid, this doubt should lead to the inability to grant a divorce then perhaps one should be lenient.
Choshen Mishpat.1.1
The law of appointment of Judges in our days and the days of the Temple and in it are 26 paragraphs All that is explained in these laws is only with the permission of the Exalted Czar, for the law of the King is the law. It is a positive commandment from the Torah to appoint Judges as it says (Devarim 16:18) Judges and (Enforcement) Officers you should appoint for yourselves. And they need to have Semikha from the Land of Israel specifically. That is, 3 wise men and one of them that has Semikha (Rambam, Sanhedrin Chapter 4, Halacha 3) when they see a wise man that is fit to judge and issue rulings, they should give Semikha and call him Rebbe (Rabbi).
Choshen Mishpat.13.4
Even though the ones chosen [to judge] have all the laws of being a judge, and therefore it should be forbidden for any of the litigants to propose his claims before the one he chose without the other litigant present, nevertheless, it has become the minhag that each one proposes his claims before the [judge] he chose. And since each of the two parties does this, and the minhag is such, it is as if each party has accepted upon themselves this process in this mode, and there is no prohibition. However, the chosen [judge] must be careful to make sure the litigant who chose him promising him money for his work will give it to him whether he wins or loses. For were this not so, it would be prohibited for him to sit in judgement, since he has a bias, and his heart is turned even to falsity so that he can take from his party what was promised him.
Choshen Mishpat.22.8
If he accepts testimony of an Arab [i.e. gentile], it is as effective as if he accepted a relative or invalid witness. But if he agreed to be judged before an Arab judge, that does not work at all, and it is prohibited to be judged before them, as will be explained in Siman 26. But if he agreed to rely on what he judged based on the clarity of his thought, and not on their set laws, that is as effective as accepting a relative or an invalid witness (like we saw earlier in the approach of the Shach in s'k 15, and this is the proper law, unlike ...).
Choshen Mishpat.154.6
We have established that sight damage (hezek re'iyah) is a real form of damage. For most people are particular about others watching their actions, their use [of the courtyard] and their work, because the evil eye results from the gaze of others - and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 107a) that it is prohibited for a person to stand by another’s field when [its ripe grain] is standing; and they also expounded about the verse (Deuteronomy 7:15), "The Lord will ward off from you all sickness," this is the evil eye - and furthermore, there are many kinds of work and use that require privacy, such that when someone else is watching, one is prevented from doing them. But we have also established that there is established use (chazakah) with sight damage (showing the damaged party's consent to the situation). However there is a disagreement about the measure of established use, as I have written in the beginning of Arukh HaShulchan, Choshen Mishpat 153. For there are some that say that immediately when his fellow does [an action that impinges on his privacy] and it becomes known to him and [yet] he is quiet, it is immediately [considered] acquiescence. But there are others that say that it requires three years and a justification [of the action]. And we have already explained there in paragraph 3, regarding the established use of sight damage, that since there is a doubt about the law, the burden of proof is upon the one who wants to extract what his fellow [possesses]; and the one damaged is called the possessor. Hence there is no established use here without a justification and with less than three years. However there is established use with sight damage. And even though there are some great rabbis that hold that there is no established use at all with sight damage, our rabbis who are the authors of the Shulchan Arukh have determined that there is established use. And likewise should one instruct once a person has established his use for three years with a justification.
Choshen Mishpat.408.2
The Rama has already written at the end of Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 35 that the rules regarding invalid witnesses is according to the formal ruling, but there is an early enactment that in a place where there are no available valid witnesses, we accept testimony even from invalid witnesses. And there is someone who has written that this is only true regarding uncommon occurrences, but regarding torts which are common we do not apply this early enactment. . . . And I was shocked because if this limitation [on the early enactment is true] you have not left any room to survive for from where will parties secure valid witnesses regarding various forms of property damage . . . [It seems to me] that the core reason [why some have resisted expanding this early enactment] is because we are worried that some will simply hire invalid witnesses to testify falsely. Therefore, it seems to me that the law is where a beit din concludes that the testimony of invalid witnesses is not credible and the opposing party contradicts their testimony completely, the beit din will not rule on the basis of the testimony submitted by the invalid witnesses. However, if the beit din believes, based on the facts of the case, that they would be ruling correctly by admitted the testimony of these invalid witnesses, [then they should admit the testimony of the invalid witnesses] because if you did not do so, the fields, gardens and orchards will be burned down and there will be nobody to protect them. And this is the correct ruling.

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