Daily Rambam · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 24
Sugya Map
The primary focus of Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat Chapter 24 is the conceptual architecture of Shevut (rabbinic prohibitions) that do not directly resemble or lead to the thirty-nine melachot (constructive labors), but are instead designed to preserve the existential character, dignity, and rest of the Sabbath.[^1]
The sugya maps out three distinct categories of rabbinic boundaries:
- Behavioral and Conversational Decorum (V'daber Davar): The prohibition against mundane speech, planning post-Sabbath business, and running or jumping.[^2]
- Temporal Thresholds (Bein HaShemashot): The suspension of Shevut restrictions during the twilight period between sunset and nightfall for the sake of a mitzvah or pressing need (dochek).[^3]
- The Rest of the Hands (Muktzeh): The prohibition of moving items that lack a designated Sabbath utility, preventing the transformation of the holy day into an ordinary weekday (uvdin d'chol).[^4]
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ HILCHOT SHABBAT: CHAPTER 24 │
│ Existential Rest & Rabbinic Shvut │
└───────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐
│ V'DABER DAVAR │ │ BEIN HASHEMASHOT │ │ MUKTZEH │
│ Mundane Speech & │ │ Twilight Zone │ │ Psychological │
│ Business Plans │ │ Leniencies │ │ Rest of Objects │
└────────┬─────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
Nafka Mina: Nafka Mina: Nafka Mina:
Is mental planning Does suspension Can objects be
(hirhur) prohibited apply to Saturday moved without direct
like speech? night (Motza'ei)? Sabbath utility?
Nafka Mina (Practical & Conceptual Ramifications)
- The Status of Mental Planning (Hirhur): Is one permitted to mentally formulate business transactions, or does the cognitive act itself violate the rest of the day?
- Symmetry of Twilight (Bein HaShemashot): Does the suspension of Shevut for a mitzvah apply symmetrically on Friday evening (entry of Shabbat) and Saturday night (exit of Shabbat), or does the principle of masfeka lo pak'ah kedushta (out of doubt, sanctity does not exit) create an asymmetry?
- The Nature of Educational Exemptions (Chinuch): Are the court and the father obligated to restrain a minor from violating rabbinic Shevut laws, and does this obligation differ from Torah-level prohibitions?
Primary Sources
- Biblical Baseline: Isaiah 58:13 ("If you turn away your foot... not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words").
- Talmudic Foundations: Shabbat 150a (rules of mundane speech and waiting at the boundary); Shabbat 34a (laws of bein hashemashot); Eruvin 32b (the suspension of Shevut for an eruv); Shabbat 124b (the origin and reasons for muktzeh).
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
יש דברים שהן אסורין בשבת אף על פי שאינן דומין למלאכה ואינן מביאין לידי מלאכה. ומפני מה נאסרו, משום שנאמר "אם תשיב משבת רגלך עשות חפצך ביום קדשי" ונאמר "וכבדתו מעשות דרכיך ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר". לפיכך אסור לאדם להלך בחפצו בשבת ואפילו לדבר בהן... דיבור אסור, הרהור מותר.
"There are activities that are forbidden on the Sabbath despite the fact that they do not resemble the [forbidden] labors, nor will they lead to [the performance of] the [forbidden] labors... Why then are [these activities] forbidden? Because it is written, 'If you restrain your feet, because of the Sabbath, from pursuing your desires on My holy day...' and it is written, 'And you shall honor it [by refraining] from following your [ordinary] ways, attending to your wants, and speaking about [mundane] matters.' Therefore, it is forbidden for a person to go and tend to his [mundane] concerns on the Sabbath, or even to speak about them... It is speaking that is forbidden. Thinking [about such matters] is permitted."[^5]
Textual and Grammatical Nuances
The Rambam opens with a critical conceptual classification: these rabbinic decrees are not protective fences (gezeirot) designed to prevent a direct Torah violation. Rather, they represent an independent category of Shevut rooted in the prophetic command of Isaiah 58:13.
Notice the Rambam's grammatical precision:
$$\text{דיבור אסור, הרהור מותר}$$
"Speaking is forbidden; thinking is permitted." The term "דָּבָר" (from "וְדַבֵּר דָּבָר") is linguistically restricted to the physical act of articulation. This stands in contrast to "הִרְהוּר" (contemplation), which remains within the silent domain of the mind. By emphasizing this distinction, the Rambam limits the prophetic restriction to the social and communicative realm, refusing to extend the formal hand of prohibition to the inner cognitive life of the individual.
Readings
1. Seder Mishnah: The Dual Track of "Hirhur" (Thought vs. Speech)
The Seder Mishnah addresses a glaring contradiction in the Rambam’s codification of cognitive acts.^Seder Mishnah on Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 24:1:1 In Hilchot Shabbat 24:1, the Rambam rules:
$$\text{דיבור אסור, הרהור מותר}$$
"Thinking [about business] is permitted." However, in Hilchot Berachot 1:7, the Rambam rules that:
$$\text{הרהור כדיבור דמי}$$
"Thinking is like speaking," implying that if a person is unable to articulate a blessing due to physical constraint or an unclean environment, they must think the blessing in their heart, and this thought functions as a halachic equivalent to speech.[^6]
If thought is halachically equivalent to speech (hirhur k'dibbur dami), why does the mental planning of business on Shabbat not violate the prohibition of "speaking about mundane matters" (v'daber davar)?
To resolve this, the Seder Mishnah (citing the Klavon HaShekel) establishes a fundamental distinction between two categories of halachic speech:
A. The Gavra (Subjective) Track of Fulfillment
In the realm of Berachot and Kriat Shema, the Torah requires the human subject (gavra) to engage their consciousness with the divine. Ideally, this engagement must be articulated through the lips. However, if a person is under duress (onus), the mental contemplation of the words satisfies the core requirement of cognitive engagement.
Here, hirhur acts as a surrogate for speech because the essence of the mitzvah is the internal intellectual awareness.
B. The Cheftza (Objective) Track of Shabbat Prohibitions
On Shabbat, the prohibition of "speaking about mundane matters" is not an injunction against internal cognitive states; it is a prohibition against the objective act of desecrating the day through weekday-like behavior (uvdin d'chol). The prophetic prohibition of "speaking a word" (v'daber davar) targets the ma'aseh (physical action) of speech.
Speech is a social act that projects weekday commerce into the public domain. Silent thought, by contrast, lacks this public, objective dimension. Thus, even if hirhur can functionally substitute for speech in the subjective fulfillment of mitzvot, it cannot construct the objective reality of a Shabbat violation.
The Rambam’s formulation is mathematically precise: "It is the speaking that is forbidden," because only speech transforms the domestic serenity of Shabbat into a public marketplace.
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE TWO TRACKS OF HIRHUR │
└───────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ SUBJECTIVE/GAVRA TRACK │ │ OBJECTIVE/CHEFTZA TRACK │
│ (Hilchot Berachot 1:7) │ │ (Hilchot Shabbat 24:1) │
├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Focus: Cognitive engagement │ │ • Focus: Social/behavioral rest │
│ • Rule: Hirhur K'Dibbur Dami │ │ • Rule: Hirhur Mutar │
│ • Mechanism: Thought acts as a │ │ • Mechanism: Only articulated │
│ valid surrogate for speech │ │ speech constitutes a weekday │
│ under duress (onus). │ │ act (uvdin d'chol). │
└─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘
2. Sha'ar HaMelekh: The Temporal Symmetries of Twilight
The Rambam rules in Halachah 10 that all rabbinic Shevut prohibitions are suspended during bein hashemashot (twilight) for the sake of a mitzvah or a pressing need.[^7]
The Magen Avraham raises a critical doubt: Does this leniency apply symmetrically to both twilight zones—Friday evening (ma'alei yoma, entering Shabbat) and Saturday night (apokei yoma, exiting Shabbat)?^Sha'ar HaMelekh on Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 24:10:1
The doubt rests on a deep metaphysical distinction. On Friday evening, Shabbat has not yet definitively arrived; we are moving from a state of profane weekday (chol) into holiness (kodesh). Therefore, we apply the rule of safek d'rabbanan l'kula (a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently) with ease.
On Saturday night, however, Shabbat is already established. The principle of masfeka lo pak'ah kedushta suggests that once holiness has seized the day, it cannot be discharged by a mere temporal doubt. Therefore, perhaps bein hashemashot on Saturday night should be treated with the full stringency of Shabbat itself, and Shevut prohibitions should not be suspended.
The Sha'ar HaMelekh aggressively counters this asymmetry, proving from the Rishonim that bein hashemashot is a structurally uniform zone of suspended rabbinic legislation. He marshals two primary proofs:
Proof A: The Rashba's Manuscript (Eruvin 32b)
The Rashba discusses a case where a person places an eruv on an branch of a tree, and it is necessary to climb the tree to retrieve it during the twilight of Saturday night (to prepare for a festival immediately following Shabbat). Climing a tree is a rabbinic Shevut.
The Rashba explicitly rules that since bein hashemashot on Saturday night is a safek (doubt), the rabbinic prohibition of climbing a tree is suspended. The Rashba writes:
$$\text{כל בין השמשות בין בכניסתו בין ביציאתו לא גזרו עליו משום שבות}$$
"Any twilight, whether at its entrance or its exit, they did not decree against it regarding Shevut."
Proof B: Tosafot (Eruvin 34a s.v. "Gezera")
The Sha'ar HaMelekh analyzes the Talmudic discussion regarding the prohibition of carrying an object "less than four cubits at a time" (pachot pachot m'arba amot) in the public domain during twilight.
The Tosafot establish that if the transition of Saturday night into a holiday (Yom Tov) requires the transport of items, the rabbinic prohibition is waived during Saturday night's twilight.
Through these proofs, the Sha'ar HaMelekh establishes a unified theory of bein hashemashot. The suspension of Shevut is not a local, subjective leniency based on "welcoming the Sabbath." It is an objective, mathematical reality of the rabbinic legislative system: the Sages never extended their decrees to any temporal zone defined by physical doubt (safek), regardless of whether that zone marks the entry or the exit of the holy day.
3. Yitzchak Yeranen: The Eruvin Contradiction and the Anatomy of Rabbinic Decrees
The Yitzchak Yeranen addresses a classic Talmudic friction between two seemingly contradictory Mishnayot regarding twilight.^Yitzchak Yeranen on Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 24:10:1
- Mishnah A (Shabbat 34a): "During twilight (safek chashechah), we do not make an eruv (ein m'arvin)." This implies a strict prohibition against establishing an eruv during this doubtful period.
- Mishnah B (Eruvin 32b): Implies that one may establish an eruv during twilight, or at least rely on an eruv that is positioned at twilight.
To resolve this, the Yitzchak Yeranen contrasts the classic approaches of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam (R"T), and maps how the Rambam bypasses their dispute through a highly original taxonomy of Eruvin:
Rashi's Resolution
Rashi argues that eruv techumin (the boundary extension) is more stringent than eruv chatzerot (the courtyard merger).
Because eruv techumin has a biblical anchor (Asmachta) in the verse "Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day" Exodus 16:29, the Rabbis treated it with greater severity. Thus, one cannot make an eruv techumin during twilight, but one can make an eruv chatzerot.
Rabbenu Tam's Resolution
Rabbenu Tam inverts this logic. He argues that eruv techumin is actually more lenient because it only serves to facilitate walking, which is a minor weekday concern.
Conversely, eruv chatzerot is more stringent because it permits carrying, which closely resembles the severe Torah prohibition of transferring domains. Therefore, R"T holds that one may establish an eruv techumin during twilight, but not an eruv chatzerot.
The Rambam's Synthesis
The Rambam rejects both symmetrical dichotomies. He distinguishes not between the type of eruv, but between the state of the action:
- Laying the Eruv Ab Initio (L'chatchilah): One may not physically set out to establish any new eruv during twilight because the act of setting it up involves rabbinic violations that could have been avoided by doing so earlier.
- The Activation of the Eruv (B'di'avad / Structural reliance): Since the legal activation of an eruv occurs precisely at the moment of twilight (kniyat eruv bein hashemashot), the Shevut of relying on this transition is permitted.
Therefore, if the eruv was already placed on a tree before Shabbat, one may climb the tree during twilight to retrieve it, or rely on its presence, because the Sages did not apply the Shevut of "using a tree" to block the activation of a mitzvah at this critical temporal threshold.
Friction
The Strongest Kushya: The Paradox of Tithing "Tevel" during Twilight
In Halachah 10, the Rambam rules that while all rabbinic Shevut prohibitions are suspended during twilight (bein hashemashot) for the sake of a mitzvah, there is a glaring exception:
$$\text{אין מעשרין את הודאי}$$
"One may not tithe produce that is definitely untithed (tevel gamur)" during twilight.[^8]
This presents an immediate conceptual crisis. The act of tithing on Shabbat is forbidden only as a rabbinic Shevut (because it resembles "repairing an object," metaken mana, by transforming food from forbidden to permitted status).[^9]
Furthermore, preparing food for consumption on Shabbat is a supreme mitzvah of Oneg Shabbat (Sabbath Pleasure).
If Shevut is suspended during twilight for the sake of a mitzvah, why is the Shevut of tithing definitely untithed produce (tevel) upheld? Why does the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbat not override this rabbinic restriction, especially when the Rambam does permit tithing doubtfully tithed produce (demai) during twilight?
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE TWILIGHT TITHING PARADOX │
└───────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ DEFINITELY UNTITHED (Tevel) │ │ DOUBTFULLY TITHED (Demai) │
├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Status: Halachically dead │ │ • Status: Halachically usable │
│ • Tithing at Twilight: BANNED │ │ • Tithing at Twilight: PERMITTED│
│ • Cause: Requires a definite │ │ • Cause: Minor rabbinic repair; │
│ metaphysical transformation │ │ does not require a stable │
│ (Tikkun) in a doubtful state. │ │ temporal moment to succeed. │
└─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘
Terutz 1: The Maggid Mishneh / Birkat Avraham (Structural Negligence)
The Maggid Mishneh, citing Rabbenu Avraham (the Rambam's son), resolves this by analyzing the temporal necessity of the mitzvah.[^10]
The suspension of Shevut during twilight is restricted to cases where the mitzvah must be performed at this exact moment, or where the circumstances are beyond the individual's control (onus).
With definitely untithed produce (tevel gamur), the owner had ample opportunity to separate the tithes throughout the entire Friday. The state of tevel is a result of conscious human neglect.
The Sages did not suspend their decrees during twilight to bail out an individual who acted with structural negligence.
By contrast, demai (produce purchased from an unlearned person, where we are unsure if it was tithed) is a state of doubt imposed by external social circumstances. Since the prohibition of demai is itself a light rabbinic stringency, and the need is immediate, the Sages permitted its tithing during twilight.
Terutz 2: The Rogatchover Gaon (The Ontological Nature of "Tikkun")
The Rogatchover Gaon (Tzofnat Paneach) offers a deeper, highly abstract metaphysical resolution, distinguishing between two categories of rabbinic Shevut:[^11]
Category A: Behavioral Prohibitions (Ma'aseh Gavar)
These are actions that are forbidden because of physical movement (e.g., climbing a tree, swimming in water, carrying in a carmelit).
These prohibitions represent a restriction on human physical output. When twilight arrives, the Sages simply remove this behavioral restriction for the sake of a mitzvah. The physical action occurs, and the mitzvah is achieved.
Category B: Transformative Legal Statuses (Chalut Shem / Tikkun)
These are actions that do not merely represent physical movement, but effect a metaphysical transformation in the object itself (e.g., tithing, which transforms food from tevel to muttar, or consecrating an object).
To effect a chalut shem (a legal designation), there must be a definite, stable point of time in which the transformation occurs.
Bein hashemashot is not merely a period where we are "unsure" of the time; it is a state of objective temporal suspension—it is neither fully day nor fully night, or it is both.
If you separate tithes during twilight, the transformation is caught in a temporal loop:
- If twilight is day, the tithing occurred on Friday (valid).
- If twilight is night, the tithing occurred on Shabbat (rabbinically invalid, and cannot take effect).
Because a legal transformation (tikkun) cannot exist in a state of suspended legal reality, the act of tithing tevel cannot resolve itself. It remains unresolved.
Therefore, the Rambam rules that you cannot tithe tevel during twilight—not because the Sages were being stringent, but because the physics of twilight make a definite legal transformation metaphysically impossible.
Demai, however, does not require a profound metaphysical transformation; it is already fundamentally permitted by Torah law (as most unlearned people did in fact tithe). Tithing demai is merely a rabbinic clean-up of a doubt. Therefore, it can take effect even within the temporal suspension of twilight.
Intertext
1. Isaiah 58:13 vs. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 307:1 (The Psychology of Rest)
The prophetic source for these laws is Isaiah 58:13:
אִם-תָּשִׁיב מִשַּׁבָּת רַגְלֶךָ, עֲשׂוֹת חֲפָצֶךָ בְּיוֹם קָדְשִׁי... וְכִבַּדְתּוֹ מֵעֲשׂוֹת דְּרָכֶךָ, מִמְּצוֹא חֶפְצְךָ וְדַבֵּר דָּבָר.
"If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, from pursuing your business on My holy day... and shall honor it, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words."
The Shulchan Aruch codifies this prophetic mandate, but the Rema introduces a crucial psychological modification:[^12]
מי שמתענג בסיפורי שמועות ודברי חידושים, מותר לספרם בשבת.
"One who derives pleasure from telling stories of news and novel events is permitted to speak of them on Shabbat."
This creates a fundamental tension between two models of Sabbath rest:
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ MODELS OF SABBATH REST (SHABBAT) │
└───────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ OBJECTIVE REST MODEL │ │ SUBJECTIVE REST MODEL │
│ (Rambam) │ │ (Rema) │
├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Focus: Formal linguistic and │ │ • Focus: Psychological state of │
│ behavioral withdrawal. │ │ the individual (Oneg). │
│ • Rule: Strict ban on mundane │ │ • Rule: Leniency for mundane │
│ speech, regardless of personal│ │ speech if it brings pleasure │
│ pleasure or relief. │ │ or relieves anxiety. │
└─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘
The Objective Rest Model (Rambam)
For the Rambam, Shabbat requires an objective linguistic and behavioral withdrawal. The manner of speech must be different; mundane talk is banned because it keeps the human mind anchored in the marketplace. The restriction is structural and universal.
The Subjective Rest Model (Rema)
For the Rema, the ultimate arbiter of the Sabbath is the psychological state of the individual (Oneg). If talking about worldly news brings a person pleasure, or if planning relieves their anxiety, the conversation is no longer classified as "mundane" (chafatzecha). It becomes an instrument of Oneg Shabbat.
The contemporary halachic consensus navigates between these two poles, striving for objective linguistic restraint while accommodating the psychological needs of the individual.
2. The Minor on Shabbat: Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 24:11 vs. Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27-28
In Halachah 11, the Rambam rules that if a minor (katan) performs a rabbinic Shevut violation (e.g., plucking a leaf from an unperforated flower pot, or carrying in a carmelit):
$$\text{אין בית דין מצווין להפרישו}$$
"The court is not obligated to prevent him."[^13] Furthermore, if his father allows him to do this, the court does not rebuke the father.[^14]
This must be contrasted with the Rambam’s rulings in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27-28:
קטן שאכל אחד מן המאכלות האסורות, או שעשה מלאכה בשבת... אין בית דין מצווין להפרישו... במה דברים אמורים, בשעשה מעצמו. אבל להאכילו בידים אסור, ואפילו דברים שאיסורן מדברי סופרים. וכן אסור להרגילו לחלל שבת... ואף על פי שאין בית דין מצווין להפריש את הקטן, אביו מצווה להפרישו ולחנכו בקדושה.
"When a minor eats a forbidden food or performs a [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath... the court is not obligated to restrain him... This applies when the child acts on his own initiative. We may not, however, feed him [forbidden food] ourselves, even things forbidden by rabbinic decree. Similarly, it is forbidden to accustom him to desecrate the Sabbath... And although the court is not obligated to restrain the child, his father is obligated to restrain him and train him in holiness."
The Kessef Mishneh resolves this apparent friction by establishing a two-tiered system of educational obligation (Chinuch):[^15]
Tier 1: Torah-Level Prohibitions (D'Oraita)
If a minor attempts to violate a Torah-level prohibition (e.g., lighting a fire or eating non-kosher meat), the father has a personal, positive obligation from the Sages to actively restrain him and educate him.
The court (Beit Din), representing society, is not obligated to step into the domestic sphere to stop the child, but they will rebuke the father if he stands by and allows his child to violate Torah law.
Tier 2: Rabbinic-Level Prohibitions (D'Rabbanan)
If the violation is purely rabbinic in nature (a Shevut like carrying in a carmelit), the Sages did not extend the father's obligation to include active, immediate physical restraint.
The father may not instruct the child to violate the Shevut, but if the child does so on his own initiative, the father is not obligated to stop him at that moment.
Consequently, the court does not rebuke the father for this passive allowance.
This distinction preserves the integrity of the educational process, ensuring that children are trained strictly in the core of Torah law without placing an unbearable domestic burden on parents regarding every rabbinic detail during their youth.
Psak/Practice
| Case / Scenario | Halachic Status | Practical Application / Source |
|---|---|---|
| Silent Business Planning | Permitted (L'chatchilah) | One may mentally review financial portfolios or plan real estate acquisitions, though it is a mitzvah to avoid doing so to ensure complete cognitive rest.[^16] |
| Discussing Prices & Sums | Prohibited | When planning a post-Shabbat transaction (e.g., wedding or funeral), one may discuss details but must not mention specific monetary figures or maximum budgets.[^17] |
| Running for Exercise | Prohibited | Running to keep fit is a weekday activity (uvdin d'chol). However, running to the synagogue or to perform a mitzvah is fully permitted.[^18] |
| Twilight (Bein HaShemashot) Mitzvah Actions | Permitted | One may ask a non-Jew to perform a rabbinic Shevut (or do so oneself if vital) during twilight for the sake of a mitzvah (e.g., retrieving a shofar or lulav).[^19] |
| Protecting Existing Assets | Permitted | One may chase away animals, lock doors, or guard crops. The Sages only banned acquiring new wealth, not preserving what is already owned.[^20] |
Takeaway
The ultimate goal of the Sabbath is not merely the physical cessation of labor, but the liberation of the human mind and tongue from the gravity of mundane survival. By restricting our speech and physical movements, the Sages transform Shabbat from a simple day off into a palace of cognitive and spiritual liberty.
Footnotes
[^1]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:1. [^2]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:1-5. [^3]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:10. [^4]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:12-13. [^5]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:1. [^6]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Berachot 1:7. [^7]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:10. [^8]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:10. [^9]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 23:9, 14. [^10]: Maggid Mishneh on Hilchot Shabbat 24:10, citing Rabbenu Avraham. [^11]: Tzofnat Paneach on Hilchot Shabbat 24:10. [^12]: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 307:1 in Rema. [^13]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:11. [^14]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:11. [^15]: Kessef Mishneh on Hilchot Shabbat 24:11, resolving the contradiction with Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27-28. [^16]: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 306:8. [^17]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:4. [^18]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:4. [^19]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:10. [^20]: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 24:9.
derekhlearning.com