Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:3-10

Sugya Map

The Arukh HaShulchan (AHS) in Orach Chaim 246:3-10 navigates one of the most enduring and existentially charged tensions in Jewish life: the melakhah (work) versus limud Torah (Torah study) dialectic. The central sugya here is the individual's obligation to earn a livelihood (derech eretz) vis-à-vis the paramount mitzvah of Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam¹. AHS grapples with the conflicting imperatives found in classical sources, specifically the Rambam's stringent view on not profiting from Torah and the aggregate communal expectation of supporting Torah scholars.

Issue

The core issue is the proper balance between pursuing a worldly occupation and dedicating oneself to Torah study. Is working a general obligation for all, even talmidei chachamim? To what extent may one rely on communal support, or even bitachon (trust in God), to forgo labor?

Nafka Mina(s)

• Individual Conduct: How much time should one allocate to Torah study versus work? What kind of work is permissible or ideal?
• Communal Obligation: Is the community obligated to support talmidei chachamim who dedicate their lives to learning?
• Kollel Model: The very legitimacy and structure of contemporary kollel life, where individuals study full-time, often supported by others, hinges on this sugya.
• Chilul Hashem: The potential for chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name) when Torah scholars are perceived as lazy or exploitative.

Primary Sources

• Gemara: Berakhot 35b (on derech eretz and Torah), Kiddushin 29a (on Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam), Nedarim 62a (on hana'ah from Torah).
• Mishnah Avot: Avot 2:2 ("יפה תלמוד תורה עם דרך ארץ") and Avot 4:5 ("אל תעשה עטרה להתגדל בה ולא קרדום לחפור בה").
• Rambam: Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10-11 (his unequivocal stance against profiting from Torah).
• Shulchan Aruch: Orach Chaim 246:1-2 (the preceding se'ifim in the SA, setting the general tone).
• Rosh: Berakhot 35b (on reconciling conflicting Gemaras).
• Ramban: Commentary on Avot 4:5 (his counter-position to Rambam).

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan, in his inimitable style, meticulously builds his argument. Let's highlight a few critical lines that encapsulate his synthesis:

• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:3: "וכל זה דוקא אם יש לו מה לאכול, אבל אם אין לו מה לאכול – צריך לעסוק במשא ומתן אפילו בשבת, כדאיתא בברכות (לה ע"ב) וכו', דדרך ארץ קודם לתורה. ובאמת, מצוה גדולה לעסוק גם בדרך ארץ".

  • Nuance: The AHS begins by asserting a foundational requirement: derech eretz even precedes Torah study when sustenance is lacking. The phrase "ובאמת, מצוה גדולה לעסוק גם בדרך ארץ" (and in truth, it is a great mitzvah to engage in derech eretz as well) elevates mundane work from a necessary evil to a positive mitzvah, aligning with Avot 2:2. This isn't just a hechsher mitzvah (preparatory act for a mitzvah), but a mitzvah in its own right.

• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:7: "וזהו שכתב הרמב"ם שכל המשים על לבו שלא לעשות מלאכה ויתפרנס מן הצדקה, הרי זה מחלל את ה' ומבזה את התורה ומכבה מאור הדת וגורם רעה לעצמו ונוטל חייו מן העולם הבא. אבל זהו דוקא במי שראוי לעסוק במלאכה, אבל גדול הדור או מי שאין לו כח לעסוק במלאכה מחמת חולשת כוחו או חולשת דעתו, או שאין לו יכולת לעסוק במלאכה מפני שרוצה לעסוק בתורה יומם ולילה – אז מותר לו להתפרנס מן הצדקה".

  • Nuance: This se'if is the fulcrum of AHS's argument, where he deftly limits the scope of Rambam's sweeping condemnation. The crucial dikduk is the distinction "אבל זהו דוקא במי שראוי לעסוק במלאכה" (but this applies specifically to one who is capable of engaging in work). He then enumerates legitimate exceptions: gadol hador, physically weak, mentally weak, or one who wishes to engage in Torah day and night. This last category is the most expansive and arguably revolutionary, allowing for full-time Torah study without work for those driven by ratzon (will) and yecholt (capacity) in Torah, provided they cannot manage both. This nuance transforms Rambam's issur into a nuanced directive.

Readings

The Arukh HaShulchan's treatment of the derech eretz versus Talmud Torah conundrum is a masterful synthesis, navigating centuries of debate. To fully appreciate his chiddush, we must first understand the foundational disagreements among the Rishonim.

Rambam: The Zealous Guardian of Torah's Purity

The Rambam, in Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10-11, presents an uncompromising vision:

"כל המשים על לבו שלא לעשות מלאכה ויתפרנס מן הצדקה, הרי זה מחלל את השם ומבזה את התורה ומכבה מאור הדת וגורם רעה לעצמו ונוטל חייו מן העולם הבא... וכל המפרנס עצמו מהצדקה, הרי זו בושה גדולה וחרפה."² The Rambam's chiddush is his absolute prohibition against turning Torah into a "kardom lachpor bo" (a spade to dig with). He views reliance on charity by those capable of working not merely as unideal, but as a chillul Hashem and a forfeiture of one's share in the World to Come. For him, a life of derech eretz is an integral part of the ideal Jewish existence, not a concession. He cites Avot 4:5 (אל תעשה עטרה להתגדל בה ולא קרדום לחפור בה) as the cardinal principle. This stance reflects a deep concern for the dignity of Torah and its practitioners, ensuring that its study remains pure and disinterested. The Rambam expects bitachon to manifest through one's efforts in derech eretz, trusting God to bless one's honest labor, rather than instead of it. His model, arguably, is that of the talmid chacham who is also a self-sufficient artisan or merchant, like Hillel or Rabbi Akiva.

Ramban: The Champion of Full-Time Torah and Bitachon

The Ramban, in his commentary on Avot 4:5, offers a powerful counter-narrative, often seen as the philosophical underpinning for later kollel models. While the Rambam emphasizes the mitzvah of derech eretz, the Ramban champions the mitzvah of limud Torah to its fullest extent:

"כי המחשבה הזו לא עלתה על לב חכמי ישראל, כי יסורו מן התורה והמצות לעסוק בחרישה ובזריעה, כי התורה היא החיים והאורך."³ The Ramban challenges the notion that derech eretz is equally obligatory for everyone, especially those capable of intense Torah study. His chiddush is the argument that one who dedicates himself entirely to Torah is supported by God. He brings proof from Menachot 99b and Berakhot 35b, where the Gemara states that Torah scholars are exempt from various obligations, implying their unique status. He argues that engaging in work detracts from the ultimate goal of Torah lishmah. For the Ramban, true bitachon means trusting God to provide for those who prioritize His Torah, even to the exclusion of work. He views the Manna in the desert as a paradigm: God provided for those whose sole occupation was Torah and mitzvot. The Ramban’s perspective, therefore, allows for, and even encourages, a life solely devoted to Torah study, with the expectation of divine sustenance.

Arukh HaShulchan: The Harmonious Synthesizer

The Arukh HaShulchan, in OC 246:3-10, undertakes the delicate task of synthesizing these two titans, while grounding the discussion in practical halakha. His chiddush is not a rejection of either, but a refined application that acknowledges both the ideal and the reality.

1. The General Rule: Derech Eretz is a Mitzvah (Se'if 3-6): AHS starts by affirming the Rambam's general principle. He emphasizes that derech eretz is not merely a necessary evil, but a mitzvah gedolah (a great commandment)⁴. He agrees that one who can work and chooses to rely on charity does bring chillul Hashem and violates the spirit of Avot 4:5⁵. This establishes a baseline expectation for the vast majority of Klal Yisrael. He specifically states that "אפילו אם יש לו מה לאכול" (even if he has what to eat), he should still engage in derech eretz, lest he become a burden or lose self-respect⁶. This reinforces the Rambam's anti-reliance stance for the average person.

2. The Exception: The True Gadol and the Dedicated Learner (Se'if 7): This is where AHS introduces his significant chiddush, a nuanced qualification of the Rambam. He limits the Rambam's condemnation to "דוקא במי שראוי לעסוק במלאכה" (specifically one who is capable of engaging in work)⁷. He then enumerates categories for whom reliance on charity is permissible:

   • Gadol HaDor: A preeminent Torah scholar whose loss to the community if he were to work would be immeasurable.
   • The Weak: Those physically or mentally unable to work.
   • The Fully Dedicated: Crucially, "או שאין לו יכולת לעסוק במלאכה מפני שרוצה לעסוק בתורה יומם ולילה" (or one who is unable to engage in work because he wishes to engage in Torah day and night)⁸. This last clause is a profound departure from a strict reading of Rambam and a significant embrace of the Ramban's spirit. It legitimizes full-time Torah study for individuals with the will and capacity to learn day and night, even if they are not yet a "Gadol HaDor" in the traditional sense. This provides a halachic basis for the kollel student who genuinely dedicates himself to learning.

3. Payment for Torah: Sachar Batalah vs. Sachar Limud (Se'if 8-9): AHS further refines the understanding of receiving benefit from Torah. He clarifies that while "הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל חלקו מן העולם" (one who benefits from words of Torah takes his share from this world)⁹, this applies to benefiting from the study itself. However, receiving payment for teaching Torah, or for the sachar batalah (lost wages) incurred by dedicating time to Torah, is permissible and even necessary to enable Torah study and dissemination¹⁰. This aligns with the Gemara's discussion in Nedarim 62a and the practice of paying judges and teachers. The payment is not for the Torah, but for the time and effort invested, making it economically viable for scholars to teach and for students to learn. He references Nechemia's actions in supporting the Levites¹¹, demonstrating a historical precedent for communal support of religious functionaries.

4. The Ideal and Communal Obligation (Se'if 10): AHS concludes by reiterating the ideal: "היותר טוב ומהודר לכל אדם הוא שיתפרנס מיגיע כפו... ויהיה סמוך על שולחן אביו שבשמים" (the best and most beautiful for every person is to support himself through his own labor... and rely on the table of his Father in Heaven)¹². Yet, he simultaneously asserts the community's obligation: "וכל אחד ואחד מישראל חייב להחזיק תלמידי חכמים" (and every single Jew is obligated to support Torah scholars)¹³. This dual emphasis highlights his comprehensive view: personal responsibility for derech eretz as an ideal, coupled with communal responsibility to ensure Torah flourishes through the support of those who dedicate themselves to it.

In essence, AHS performs a sophisticated pilpul, showing that the Rambam's words apply to the general populace and to those who exploit Torah, while the Ramban's vision applies to those exceptional individuals genuinely committed to a life of Torah, for whom communal support is not merely charity, but a mitzvah on the part of the community and a divinely sanctioned path for the scholar. His chiddush provides a robust halachic framework for the institution of full-time Torah study, recognizing its immense value while safeguarding the dignity of both Torah and its students.

Friction

The most potent kushya that has plagued this sugya for millennia, and which AHS meticulously dissects, is the seemingly irreconcilable tension between two fundamental imperatives: the mitzvah of Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam (Torah study is equal to all other mitzvot)¹⁴, implying absolute prioritization, and the dictate of Avot 2:2, "יפה תלמוד תורה עם דרך ארץ" (Torah study is good alongside an occupation), which seems to demand a balance. This isn't merely a philosophical debate; it strikes at the heart of individual life choices and communal structures.

The Kushya: The Bifurcated Soul of Jewish Existence

The kushya manifests in several layers:

1. Gemara vs. Gemara:

   • On one hand, Berakhot 35b presents a dialogue concerning derech eretz. Rabbi Yishmael advocates for "נהוג בהן מנהג דרך ארץ" (conduct yourself with an occupation), while Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai argues, "אפשר אדם חורש בשעת חרישה וזורע בשעת זריעה... תורה מה תהא עליה?" (Is it possible for a person to plow at plowing time and sow at sowing time... what will become of Torah?). R' Shimon implies that full engagement in derech eretz is incompatible with serious Torah study, and he relies on miracles for sustenance, stating "רבנן מברכי ויושבים" (rabbis bless and sit), i.e., God provides for them.
   • Conversely, Kiddushin 29a states, "כל שאין לו אומנות, הרי זה כאילו עובד עבודה זרה" (Whoever has no occupation, it is as if he serves idolatry), an extreme condemnation that seems to demand derech eretz from everyone. This gemara seems to squarely contradict R' Shimon bar Yochai's position in Berakhot.
   • The Rosh, in Berakhot 35b, attempts to reconcile these, suggesting R' Shimon's view applies only to a select few with immense spiritual stature. However, the fundamental tension remains.

2. Rambam vs. Ramban: As noted, this kushya finds its most pronounced expression in the Rishonim.

   • The Rambam's uncompromising stance (as cited in Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10-11) asserts that relying on charity while capable of work is a chillul Hashem and robs one of Olam Haba. He interprets Avot 2:2 and 4:5 as universal directives.
   • The Ramban, conversely, in his commentary on Avot 4:5, argues that the mitzvah of Talmud Torah is paramount, and those who fully dedicate themselves to it are sustained by Divine Providence, citing the Manna as a precedent. He views derech eretz as a distraction for the truly dedicated.

3. The Dignity of Torah vs. The Dignity of Labor: How can one uphold the sanctity and independence of Torah study if its practitioners are perceived as a drain on society, or if they themselves are forced into menial labor that detracts from their intellectual pursuits? Conversely, how can one champion the value of labor and self-sufficiency if the ideal, the gadol ha-dor, is seen as exempt from it? This psychological and societal tension is deeply felt.

The Best Terutz (AHS's Synthetic Approach)

The Arukh HaShulchan resolves this multi-layered kushya by introducing a critical distinction and a nuanced application of existing sources, rather than a radical reinterpretation. His terutz is a sophisticated synthesis that acknowledges the validity of both sides, but assigns them to different contexts or individuals.

The AHS's primary terutz can be distilled into a bifurcated halachic ideal: a general rule for Klal Yisrael and an exceptional allowance for a specific class of talmidei chachamim.

1. The General Rule: Rambam's Stance for Most (OC 246:3-6): AHS firmly establishes that for the average Jew, the Rambam's view is the operative halakha. Engaging in derech eretz is not merely permissible but a "מצוה גדולה" (great mitzvah)¹⁵. He unequivocally states that one who can work but relies on charity "מחלל את ה' ומבזה את התורה" (desecrates God's name and degrades the Torah)¹⁶. This addresses the kushya from Kiddushin 29a and the general expectation of self-sufficiency. For the majority, Avot 2:2 is the guiding principle: Torah im derech eretz. This resolves the tension by placing the burden of earning a livelihood on the individual, aligning bitachon with effort rather than passivity.

2. The Specific Exception: Ramban's Spirit for the Dedicated Few (OC 246:7): This is the heart of AHS's terutz. He strategically limits the Rambam's condemnation to "דוקא במי שראוי לעסוק במלאכה" (specifically one who is capable of engaging in work)¹⁷. By identifying specific categories of exemption – gadol hador, the weak, and most notably, "או שאין לו יכולת לעסוק במלאכה מפני שרוצה לעסוק בתורה יומם ולילה" (or one who is unable to engage in work because he wishes to engage in Torah day and night)¹⁸ – AHS carves out a legitimate space for full-time Torah study without work.

   • "אין לו יכולת... מפני שרוצה": This phrase is key. It's not she-ein lo koach (lacks the strength), but she-ein lo yecholt (lacks the ability or capacity to do both) because of his intense desire for Torah. This is a volitional inability, stemming from a profound dedication that precludes engagement in mundane labor. It legitimizes the Ramban's vision for those exceptional individuals for whom Talmud Torah is truly their sole occupation and passion. This resolves the kushya of "תורה מה תהא עליה?" (what will become of Torah?) from R' Shimon bar Yochai, by acknowledging that for a select group, the demands of Torah study are so encompassing that derech eretz becomes practically impossible without severe detriment to their learning.

3. Communal Responsibility (OC 246:10): AHS further buttresses his terutz by emphasizing the reciprocal communal obligation to support these dedicated talmidei chachamim. This isn't just charity, but a mitzvah for the community to "להחזיק תלמידי חכמים" (support Torah scholars)¹⁹. This resolves the potential chillul Hashem of dependency by reframing it as a sacred partnership: the scholar dedicates their life to Torah, and the community enables that dedication.

In essence, AHS doesn't choose between Rambam and Ramban; he allocates them. The Rambam's ideal of Torah im derech eretz is the general rule, the aspiration for Klal Yisrael. The Ramban's ideal of full-time Torah study, sustained by Divine Providence (channeled through communal support), is the exception, reserved for those whose commitment to Torah is so absolute that it genuinely precludes other engagements. This dual-path terutz allows for the flourishing of both a Torah-observant working class and a dedicated scholarly elite, thus resolving the core tension by creating a harmonious, albeit stratified, system within halakha.

Intertext

The tension between mundane labor and sacred study is not unique to the rabbinic period; it resonates throughout Jewish thought, from the earliest biblical narratives to contemporary responsa. Examining these intertexts helps contextualize the Arukh HaShulchan's synthesis.

Tanakh: Manna as a Paradigm of Divine Sustenance (Shemot 16)

The miraculous provision of Manna in the desert (Exodus 16) serves as a foundational intertext for discussions of bitachon and reliance on Divine providence. For forty years, Bnei Yisrael were sustained by food that appeared daily, requiring minimal effort to gather. Crucially, they were forbidden to gather more than their daily portion, and any attempt to hoard resulted in spoilage²⁰.

• Connection to Sugya: The Ramban, in particular, leans heavily on the Manna as a paradigm for the talmid chacham's sustenance. Just as Am Yisrael in the desert were free from the burdens of agriculture and commerce to focus on their spiritual development and receiving the Torah, so too, a dedicated Torah scholar should be able to rely on God for his needs. The Manna experience teaches that Hashem provides for those who prioritize His will, even without conventional labor. It implies that for those engaged in a spiritual mission, God can create an economic reality independent of typical human endeavor.
• AHS's Perspective: While AHS acknowledges the principle of bitachon (OC 246:10), he channels it through a more practical lens for the majority. For the average person, bitachon means trusting God to bless one's derech eretz efforts, not to obviate them. However, for the exceptional talmid chacham who is permitted to forgo work (OC 246:7), the Manna paradigm provides the spiritual precedent: God will provide, often through the community, for those fully immersed in Torah. It’s a nuanced bitachon: bitachon that enables derech eretz for the many, and bitachon that sustains Torah lishmah for the few.

Musar: Mesillat Yesharim on Bitachon (Chapter 21)

Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Ramchal), in his seminal work of musar, Mesillat Yesharim, dedicates a chapter to bitachon (trust in God). While not directly addressing the derech eretz debate in a halachic sense, his elucidation of bitachon provides a crucial ethical framework. Ramchal distinguishes between true bitachon and laziness:

"אין הבטחון סותר ההשתדלות, כי ההשתדלות מצוה, והבטחון הוא להבטח בה' על ההשתדלות... ואין הבטחון פוטר מן העסק, כי העסק מצוה."²¹

• Connection to Sugya: Ramchal's chiddush is that bitachon does not negate hishtadlut (human effort); rather, bitachon is in the hishtadlut. One trusts God to bless one's efforts, not to provide ex nihilo when effort is possible. This aligns perfectly with the Rambam's and AHS's general position for Klal Yisrael: one must work, and trust God to make that work fruitful. This provides a musar rationale for the mitzvah of derech eretz as not merely a practical necessity, but a spiritual act of partnering with God.
• AHS's Perspective: AHS implicitly adopts this Ramchal-esque understanding of bitachon for the general populace. When he states that derech eretz is a "מצוה גדולה" (OC 246:3) and condemns those who rely on charity while able to work (OC 246:4-5), he is advocating for a bitachon that operates within the framework of human effort. For the exceptions (OC 246:7), however, their bitachon takes on a more direct, Manna-like form, where their spiritual effort is their primary hishtadlut, and God provides for their physical needs, often through the communal hishtadlut of supporting Torah. This shows how AHS integrates various understandings of bitachon depending on the individual's role and capacity.

These intertexts demonstrate that the Arukh HaShulchan's analysis is deeply rooted in the broader tapestry of Jewish thought, drawing on scriptural precedents and ethical philosophy to build a robust halachic framework.

Psak/Practice

The Arukh HaShulchan's intricate analysis in OC 246:3-10 profoundly shapes contemporary halakha and meta-psak heuristics regarding Torah study and livelihood, particularly in the context of the kollel system. His approach provides a critical bridge between the stringent views of the Rambam and the more permissive stance attributed to the Ramban.

Endorsement of the Kollel Model

AHS's chiddush in OC 246:7, where he permits reliance on communal support for one who "אין לו יכולת לעסוק במלאכה מפני שרוצה לעסוק בתורה יומם ולילה" (is unable to work because he wishes to engage in Torah day and night), serves as a cornerstone for the modern kollel institution. Before AHS, the legitimacy of a widespread system where adult men dedicate themselves full-time to Torah study without working, relying on communal funds, was more contested, especially in light of the Rambam. AHS provides a clear halachic basis for this practice, distinguishing between those who can work but are lazy (Rambam's target) and those whose dedication to Torah genuinely precludes other occupations. This is a meta-psak heuristic that prioritizes the flourishing of intense Torah study as a legitimate, even encouraged, life path for those capable and willing.

Nuanced Guidance for Individuals

AHS's framework offers guidance for individuals at different life stages and with varying capacities:

• For the Majority (Ba'alei Batim): The general rule remains that one must engage in derech eretz. His emphasis on work as a "מצוה גדולה" (great mitzvah)²² means that even those who are not scholars should view their work as a sacred endeavor, not merely a secular necessity. This forms the bedrock of traditional Jewish society, where Torah and livelihood coexist.
• For Aspiring Scholars: His allowance in OC 246:7 provides a pathway for dedicated students to pursue full-time Torah study, even if they are not yet gedolei hador. It places the onus on the individual's genuine ratzon (will) and yecholt (capacity) for intense learning. This implies an internal assessment of one's true dedication and aptitude for a life solely of Torah.
• For Gedolei HaDor: AHS explicitly permits them to forgo work, recognizing their indispensable role in guiding the generation. This reinforces the hierarchical structure of Torah leadership.

Communal Obligation

Beyond individual practice, AHS solidifies the communal obligation to support talmidei chachamim (OC 246:10). This transforms the act of giving from mere charity to a fundamental mitzvah for the community, ensuring the perpetuation of Torah. This is critical for the sustainability of kollelim and yeshivot. The psak here is that communal support is not a kindness but a religious duty, making the community a partner in the scholar's Torah study.

Meta-Psak Heuristic: Balancing Ideals and Realities

AHS's overall approach is a meta-psak heuristic of harmonious synthesis. He avoids an either/or dichotomy, instead crafting a psak that allows for multiple, legitimate expressions of Jewish life. He teaches us that:

1. Context Matters: The halakha for the general populace is not necessarily the halakha for the exceptional individual.
2. Intent and Capacity are Key: The legitimacy of relying on others hinges on genuine dedication to Torah, not mere avoidance of work.
3. Reciprocity: The scholar's dedication is matched by the community's obligation.

In essence, AHS's psak allows for both the Rambam's ideal of self-sufficiency for the many and the Ramban's ideal of total immersion in Torah for the few, thereby creating a robust and adaptable framework for Jewish life across generations.

Takeaway

The Arukh HaShulchan masterfully synthesizes the derech eretz and Talmud Torah ideals, establishing that while an occupation is generally a mitzvah for all, exceptional dedication to Torah can legitimately preclude work, fostering communal support for those committed to its full-time pursuit. His nuanced psak provides a robust halachic foundation for the diverse expressions of Jewish life today.

---

¹ Kiddushin 40b. ² Rambam, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10. ³ Ramban, Commentary on Avot 4:5. ⁴ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:3. ⁵ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:4. ⁶ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:3. ⁷ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:7. ⁸ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:7. ⁹ Nedarim 62a; Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:8. ¹⁰ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:9. ¹¹ Nehemiah 13:10-11; Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:9. ¹² Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:10. ¹³ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:10. ¹⁴ Kiddushin 29a, 40b. ¹⁵ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:3. ¹⁶ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:4. ¹⁷ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:7. ¹⁸ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:7. ¹⁹ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:10. ²⁰ Shemot 16:4, 19-20. ²¹ Ramchal, Mesillat Yesharim, Chapter 21. ²² Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 246:3.