Shulchan Arukh · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
The measure of the three parsa’ot, the sugya of fixing a meal on Shabbat eve,
the fast of the anshei ma’aseh — machloket of Rishonim and Acharonim
The subject:
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim, siman 249 · 4 se’ifim
with the apparatus of the siman: Tur, Beit Yosef, Taz, Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah, Shulchan Arukh HaRav
The talmudic base:
סוכה מ״ד: · גיטין ל״ח: · פסחים צ״ט: · עירובין מ׳:–מ״א.
Edited and studied by: Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
- Opening the sugya — where the limit of three parsa’ot comes from
- The measure of the three parsa’ot — how the apparatus counts it
- The underlying chakira on the three parsa’ot — a positive duty, or mere restraint?
- The sugya of fixing a meal on Shabbat eve — פסחים צ״ט: and גיטין ל״ח:
- The gader of a “se’udah kevu’ah” — what makes a meal forbidden
- The ninth hour and the rest of the day — two prohibitions of unequal rank
- Brit milah and pidyon haben on Shabbat eve
- The fast of the anshei ma’aseh — source and definition
- The Rishonim on מתענה ומשלים — the Rosh, the Ra’avad and those who differ
- An individual’s fast, a communal fast — the Rama’s gloss on the Mechaber
- Ta’anit chalom on Shabbat eve — nafka minot
- What the apparatus decides — the Admur HaZaken and the Acharonim
📜 The text of the Shulchan Arukh — four se’ifim
The siman opens with דינים השייכים לערב שבת. ובו ד סעיפים (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט) — four se’ifim and three subjects: the road, the meal, the fast. All the pilpul that follows is tied to these four lines, which is why they are given here in full rather than summarised.
Two points of reading, before entering the pilpul. First, the last line — the one on ta’anit chalom — is the Mechaber, not the Rama: in Sefaria’s text the Rama’s gloss closes at ולכן בתעני׳ יחיד לא ישלים וטוב לפרש כן בשעת קבלת התענית ובתעני׳ צבור ישלים והכי נהוג, and what follows returns to the author. Second, the Mechaber himself lays down in se’if ד an escape that is often left out of the quotation — אם לא שפירש בשעת קבלת התענית עד שישלימו הצבור תפלתן (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ד) — and the whole of section 10 depends on it.
1. Opening the sugya — where the limit of three parsa’ot comes from
The source
The Beit Yosef does not look for this din in a Yerushalmi or a Tosefta: he locates it at the beginning of perek Lulav va’Aravah, in the Babylonian Talmud, and that is where it must be read.
« אַל יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת יוֹתֵר מִשָּׁלֹשׁ פַּרְסָאוֹת » (סוכה מ״ד ע״ב)
No sooner stated than restricted — and the whole sugya grows out of that restriction. Rav Kahana first reads it this way: the limit applies only to a man going home, for one going to a host relies on what the host will have prepared.
« לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְאוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ — אַמַּאי דְּנָקֵיט סְמִיךְ » (סוכה מ״ד ע״ב)
Then the Gemara gives a second version of the same statement, exactly the reverse: the limit was stated in order to teach that it applies even when he is going home — and therefore all the more so to a host.
« לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְבֵיתֵיהּ » (סוכה מ״ד ע״ב)
And Rav Kahana supports that second reading from his own case: he once arrived somewhere on Shabbat eve and did not find so much as a dish of fried fish.
« בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ כָּסָא דְהַרְסָנָא לָא אַשְׁכַּחִי » (סוכה מ״ד ע״ב)
What is decided here. The Beit Yosef writes that we hold like the second lashon, and that the Rambam ruled likewise: ומשמע דכלישנא בתרא נקטינן וכן פסק הרמב״ם בפ״ל (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט). That is why the Mechaber, in se’if א, takes care to put both cases into the same clause — בין שהולך לבית אחרים בין שהולך לביתו (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:א). The lamdan will therefore read se’if א as a decision of a machloket, not as a copy of the Gemara: where the first version confined the din to going home, the Mechaber expressly extends it to both.
The reason is not left to be guessed: the Mechaber writes it into the din itself — to arrive בעוד היום גדול, while the day is still long, and to be able to prepare what Shabbat requires. The whole question of sections 2 and 3 will be whether that reason measures the din, or merely accompanies it.
2. The measure of the three parsa’ot — how the apparatus counts it
Three parsa’ot: from when, and for how long? The apparatus of this siman answers not in kilometres but in a fraction of the day, and that is already a position.
« מתחלת היום והוא קרוב לשליש היום כפי מהלך אדם בינוני י׳ פרסאות ביום » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳)
The Mishnah Berurah therefore counts from daybreak and states the equivalence: an average man covers ten parsa’ot in a day, so three parsa’ot are roughly a third of it. The Admur HaZaken gives the same measure in hours, and refers for the detail to siman תנ״ט.
« לֹא יְהַלֵּךְ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי שִׁעוּר שֶׁהוּא מַהֲלַךְ ג׳ פַּרְסָאוֹת שֶׁל אָדָם בֵּינוֹנִי הַמְהַלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו, דְּהַיְנוּ ד׳ שָׁעוֹת וְד׳ חֳמָשִׁים » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ג)
Four hours and four fifths of average hours — four hours and forty-eight minutes. That leaves the traveller who is not walking. The Magen Avraham, in the name of the Bayit Chadash, and the Mishnah Berurah after him, write that in a wagon one may go further, but the condition itself does not move.
« ואם הוא יושב בעגלה יכול ללכת יותר ומ״מ יזהר שיהיה יכול להגיע בעוד היום גדול » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳)
« ובנוסע בעגלה או רוכב על סוס דנוסע במהרה יוכל ליסע הרבה יותר מג׳ פרסאות עד שליש היום » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳)
| The source | How it measures the three parsa’ot | What follows |
|---|---|---|
| Mishnah Berurah ס״ק א׳ | From daybreak; close to a third of the day, ten parsa’ot being an average man’s day | A limit of time, not of distance |
| Shulchan Arukh HaRav רמ״ט:ג | 4 hours and 4/5 of average hours (out of 24); refers to siman תנ״ט | The same limit, said in hours |
| Magen Avraham ס״ק א׳, in the name of the ב״ח | In a wagon, further — provided he arrives בעוד היום גדול | It is the arrival that governs, not the distance |
Chakira. Is the measure of three parsa’ot:
- First limb — a fixed shiur, a quantity of road that halakhah settled once and for all, and which is then converted as one converts a mil?
- Second limb — a functional shiur, that is, the time one must leave ahead of oneself in order to prepare for Shabbat, three parsa’ot being merely its ordinary expression?
Both limbs have their support in the apparatus itself. For the first: the Mishnah Berurah and the Admur HaZaken fix the limit independently of what the man will have to prepare. For the second: the Magen Avraham permits the wagon, which only makes sense if the hour of arrival is the real shiur. The question remains open, and section 3 will show it recurring at the level of the gader of the din.
A point that must be stated, because one often reads otherwise. Tables converting the three parsa’ot into kilometres circulate, ascribed now to the Rama, now to the Chazon Ish, now to Rav Chaim Naeh. None of those conversions is written in the apparatus of siman רמ״ט: neither the Taz, nor the Magen Avraham, nor the Mishnah Berurah gives a metric value here. The question of the mil and its length is treated elsewhere — the Admur HaZaken says so himself by referring to סִמָּן תנ״ט. A page that puts kilometres here is borrowing from another place in the Shulchan Arukh, and must say so.
3. The underlying chakira on the three parsa’ot
A positive duty, or mere restraint?
Chakira. Is se’if א:
- First limb — the expression of a positive duty to prepare for Shabbat, of which the limit on travel is only a consequence: since one must prepare, one must be home in time;
- Second limb — a restriction on travel posited in its own right, which falls as soon as its reason falls — if he sent word, if he rides, if he could not have prepared anything where he was?
The second limb can be read in the se’if itself: the Mechaber lifts the din in two cases, and does so without reservation.
« אבל אם במקום שהוא שם א״א לו להכין צרכי שבת או שאינו מקום יישוב בטוח מותר לילך אפי׳ כמה פרסאות » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:א)
« ואם שלח להודיעם שהוא הולך שם לשבת מותר לו לילך כמה פרסאות בכל גוונא » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:א)
The first limb rests on the firmness with which the Mishnah Berurah refuses the most natural argument — “they will surely have prepared for me”.
« ואף שהוא מכוין שבביתו יהיה לו יותר עונג שבת מ״מ אסור שמא לא ידעו כלל מביאתו ולא הכינו בשבילו » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳)
What the Mishnah Berurah adds, and how it shifts the question. Having reported that in these countries people prepare amply and that the din is therefore no longer observed, she refuses to leave it there — not on the ground of preparation, but on the ground of the chillul Shabbat that awaits the belated traveller.
« דמ״מ צריך ליזהר לכתחלה שלא ילך או יסע עד סמוך לערב מפני שכמה פעמים נכשלים עי״ז ובאים לידי חילול שבת » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳)
In other words: the Mishnah Berurah does read the din as functional — it lapses when preparation is assured — but she immediately substitutes a second reason, independent of the first. The lamdan will note that the reason may fall without the conduct falling with it.
Nafka mina between the two limbs.
- One who sent word ahead: permitted, and כמה פרסאות, with no stated number — so the Mechaber writes (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:א). This leans to the second limb.
- One who is in a place where he can prepare nothing, or in a place that is not a secure settlement: permitted to travel, and the Mishnah Berurah gives the reason, and then draws from it an extension of the permission — דעמידה בדרך אינו מקום בטוח דכל הדרכים בחזקת סכנה ולכן אפילו יש עמו צדה כדי צרכי שבת מותר לו ליסע משם עד שיבוא למקום בטוח (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ה׳): standing on the road is not a secure place, since all roads are presumed dangerous — and therefore, even if he has with him provisions for the needs of Shabbat, he is permitted to travel on from there until he reaches a secure place. The reason does not stop with itself: the man whom the first argument, that of preparation, would not have sufficed to permit, this second one permits.
- One who merely assumes his household will have prepared: forbidden nonetheless (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳). This leans to the first limb — one does not expect preparation, one guarantees it.
All three are read in the same se’if, and neither reading covers all three on its own. That is what makes this chakira a real question rather than an exercise.
4. The sugya of fixing a meal on Shabbat eve — פסחים צ״ט: and גיטין ל״ח:
The two Gemarot, and what distinguishes them
Se’if ב holds two things together, and they do not come from the same place: the prohibition of fixing a meal, and the mitzvah to refrain from the ninth hour onward. The second comes from Pesachim, the first from Gittin — and confusing them is the mistake that lies in wait here.
In Pesachim the baraita sets Rabbi Yehudah against Rabbi Yosei about eating, not about fixing a meal.
« לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לַשַּׁבָּת כְּשֶׁהוּא תַּאֲוָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה » (פסחים צ״ט ע״ב)
« רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֵל וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ » (פסחים צ״ט ע״ב)
And the Gemara returns to it a little lower in a second form, where the limit is no longer “from minchah” but “from the ninth hour” — and that is the one the Mechaber will adopt.
« לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים מִתֵּשַׁע שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה » (פסחים צ״ט ע״ב)
In Gittin, something else entirely: Rabbah lists three practices by which householders lost their property, and Rabbi Yochanan reports what happened in Jerusalem.
« בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי, נָחֲתִי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים מִנִּכְסֵיהוֹן » (גיטין ל״ח ע״ב)
« שְׁתֵּי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אַחַת קָבְעָה סְעוּדָּתָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת וְאַחַת קָבְעָה סְעוּדָּתָהּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן נֶעְקְרוּ » (גיטין ל״ח ע״ב)
The Mishnah Berurah points to that account when commenting on the opening words of se’if ב — and it is from there, not from Pesachim, that the prohibition of fixing derives.
« ואיתא בגמרא דהיתה משפחה בירושלים שקבעה סעודתא בע״ש ונעקרה » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ז׳)
The Beit Yosef’s move. The halakhah follows Rabbi Yosei — one may begin eating until nightfall. How, then, can a prohibition stand? The Beit Yosef raises the question and gives the Tur’s answer: אע״ג דקי״ל דבע״ש מותר לאכול עד הלילה כרבי יוסי — מפרש רבינו דה״מ אכילה בעלמא אבל קביעות סעודה שאינו רגיל בה בימות החול אסור כל היום (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט). Eating is not fixing a meal: Rabbi Yosei permits the former, the account in Gittin forbids the latter. The two Gemarot therefore do not contradict one another — they are not speaking about the same thing.
Rashi’s phrase
Rashi explains in six words why the Sages want a man to enter Shabbat with an appetite — and his formulation is taken up by the whole apparatus.
Rashi — « ולא תבא סעודת שבת על השובע » (רש״י פסחים צ״ט ע״ב ד״ה כשהוא תאוה)
That the Shabbat meal should not come upon an already sated stomach. What is at stake is not excess, it is the loss of the Shabbat meal.
The Rambam, and the Taz’s kushya on the Mechaber’s wording
Rambam — « אָסוּר לִקְבֹּעַ סְעֻדָּה וּמִשְׁתֶּה בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. וּמֻתָּר לֶאֱכל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ל ה״ד)
And the clause that immediately follows, carrying the second limit:
« וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִכְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁיִּמָּנַע אָדָם מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה מִלִּקְבֹּעַ סְעֻדָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לְשַׁבָּת כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְאַוֶּה לֶאֱכל » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ל ה״ד)
The Taz’s kushya. The Taz opens his comment on se’if ב by refusing to read the Mechaber as if it were the Rambam — because it is not the Rambam.
« ל׳ הרמב״ם אינו כן אלא שהרב בעל הש״ע עירב בו פי׳ של הרב המגיד » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳)
The Rambam does not write, in his Hilkhot Shabbat chapter 30, the condition שאינו רגיל בימי החול: he forbids fixing a meal and drinking on Shabbat eve, permits eating and drinking until nightfall, and adds the restraint only from minchah onward. The qualification “which he is not accustomed to on weekdays”, and its extension to the whole day, come from the Maggid Mishneh — and it is the author of the Shulchan Arukh who fused them into the Rambam’s language. A lamdan who writes “the Rambam says” while quoting se’if ב therefore commits precisely the error the Taz points out.
The Tur, and the third position. The Tur does not argue about the division but about the hour. Since the Gemara in Gittin says “Shabbat eve” without qualification, the whole day is meant.
« ונראה דאף קודם המנחה נמי אין לקבוע דע״ש סתמא קאמר » (טור או״ח רמ״ט)
The positions, set side by side.
| Who | Which hour | Which meal |
|---|---|---|
| Baraita, Rabbi Yehudah (פסחים צ״ט:) | From minchah, or from the ninth hour | Eating, of any kind |
| Baraita, Rabbi Yosei (פסחים צ״ט:) | Until nightfall | He eats and continues — the halakhah follows him |
| Rambam (הל׳ שבת פ״ל ה״ד) | Fixing meal and drink: Shabbat eve; the restraint: from minchah | His wording does not distinguish “customary” from “uncustomary” |
| Maggid Mishneh, as the Taz reports him | The whole day | The meal he is not accustomed to on weekdays |
| Tur (טור או״ח רמ״ט) | Even before minchah, since the Gemara says ערב שבת without qualification | The fixed meal |
| Mechaber (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ב) | וכל היום בכלל האיסור for the uncustomary meal; the ninth hour for the customary one | Both, each at its own rank |
5. The gader of a “se’udah kevu’ah” — what makes a meal forbidden
What brings a meal under the prohibition? Its size, its festive character, the drinking, or only the departure from habit? The sources do not give the same answer, and the gap is measurable.
The Mechaber — the criterion is the departure from habit, and nothing else: « אסור לקבוע בע״ש סעודה ומשתה שאינו רגיל בימי החול » (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ב). An ordinary weekday meal is not covered, however large it may otherwise be.
The Taz — the criterion is the drinking. Explaining why the Jerusalem family was uprooted, he writes that it was the משתה that did it: « דאותה משפחה קבעו סעוד׳ ומשת׳ שקבעו עצמן לשתות כדרך ששותין דרך שכרות וע״כ נענשו » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳). From this he draws two diyukim in the Rambam’s language.
« הא׳ דבלא קביעות אפילו אוכל ושותה אין איסור והב׳ דאפי׳ בקביעות סעודה מותר כל שלא קובע גם לשתיה » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳)
The Admur HaZaken — he writes both criteria together, size and habit: « אָסוּר לִקְבּוֹעַ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת סְעֻדָּה גְדוֹלָה שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָגִיל בָּהּ בִּימֵי הַחֹל, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ה). And he gives his reason, which is not propriety but practical impossibility: « שֶׁעַל יְדֵי שֶׁמַּרְבֶּה בַּאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֲפִלּוּ בַּבֹּקֶר יוֹתֵר מִדַּרְכּוֹ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַחֹל — לֹא יוּכַל לְקַיֵּם סְעֻדַּת שַׁבָּת שֶׁבַּלַּיְלָה כָּרָאוּי » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ה).
The Mishnah Berurah — she separates three degrees: « ואפילו בקביעת סעודה כיון שאינו עושה סעודה רחבה רק כמו שרגיל בה בחול מותר כל היום מן הדין אבל מצוה להמנע » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ט״ו). With no kevi’ut at all: permitted, and not even a mitzvah to refrain. With kevi’ut, but on the scale of a weekday: permitted min hadin, a mitzvah to refrain. Beyond the scale of a weekday: forbidden.
Why is the morning meal at issue? One might think that only a late meal harms the evening one. The Mishnah Berurah answers that the damage is not done by the hour but by the unaccustomed quantity: « שאף שאוכלה בבוקר כיון שהוא מרבה בסעודתו שלא כרגילותו שוב לא יאכל בלילה לתיאבון » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״א). And on drinking she reaches the Taz by another road: « ואין בכלל זה אם הוא שותה כ״כ הרבה מיני משקה עד שיהא שבע כי הוא בודאי מקלקל תאות המאכל » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ד).
A sharp disagreement that must be named: the se’udah of erusin.
The Mechaber places it expressly under the prohibition — ואפילו הוא סעודת אירוסין מפני כבוד השבת שיכנס לשבת כשהוא תאב לאכול וכל היום בכלל האיסור (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ב), “and even if it is a se’udah of erusin”.
The Admur HaZaken, by contrast, counts it among the meals whose time is that very day, hence among the permitted ones — כְּגוֹן סְעֻדַּת מִילָה וּסְעֻדַּת אֵרוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ו) — because one must not delay the betrothal, lest another anticipate him.
The Mishnah Berurah distinguishes, and that is what reconciles the two wordings: דאף דסעודת אירוסין היא מצוה מ״מ היה לו להקדימה אבל אם אירס בע״ש מותר לעשות הסעודה (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ט׳). If he became betrothed on another day, the meal could have been brought forward: it falls under the Mechaber’s prohibition. If he became betrothed on that very Friday — which is permitted — the meal follows the betrothal, and we are in the Admur HaZaken’s case.
The Magen Avraham, for his part, reports the Bayit Chadash extending the prohibition to the meal of nissu’in — וה״ה סעודת נשואין דהי׳ אפשר לעשותו ביום אחר (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳) — and then lays upon it a צ״ע fed by several contradictions. That צ״ע is not resolved within the siman, and it will not be resolved here.
6. The ninth hour and the rest of the day — two prohibitions of unequal rank
Chakira. Se’if ב carries two limits. Are they two degrees of one measure — the whole day for the heavy meal, the end of the day for the light one — or two distinct institutions, neither of which follows from the other?
| When | Meal customary on weekdays | Uncustomary meal | What rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| The whole day | Permitted min hadin (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ב) | Forbidden — וכל היום בכלל האיסור | Issur |
| From the ninth hour | מצוה להמנע (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ב) | Forbidden | A mitzvah to refrain, not an issur |
Terutz: they are indeed two things. The Taz says so by citing the Rosh on perek Arvei Pesachim, and he says it explicitly: even though Rabbi Yosei permits one to begin and is not concerned that he enter Shabbat with an appetite, still, when night falls he must stop — mipnei kevod haShabbat.
« דאפשר אע״ג דשרי ר״י להתחיל ולא חייש ליכנס כשהוא תאב מ״מ לכשתחשך צריך להפסיק מפני כבוד השבת » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳)
Two reasons, then, and not two degrees: one looks to appetite — entering Shabbat כשהוא תאב לאכול — the other to the honour of the day, and the latter depends on no appetite at all.
Three clarifications from the Mishnah Berurah complete the fixing of the limit:
« היינו שעות זמניות והוא רביעית היום עד הלילה » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ז)
« ומ״מ נראה דבימות החורף בזמן שהימים קצרים מאד מצוה להמנע מלקבוע סעודה הרגילה אפילו קודם ט׳ שעות » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ז)
« ואם התחיל אינו מפסיק » (מ״ב רמ״ט:ט״ז)
The hours are therefore zemaniyot, the ninth hour falling in the last quarter of the day; in winter, when the days are very short, the restraint may begin earlier; and one who has already begun does not interrupt. That last line is decisive for the rank of the thing: an issur once begun is interrupted, a mitzvah to refrain is not — which confirms the Taz’s terutz.
Nafka mina. The Mishnah Berurah extends the same rule to the eve of Yom Tov, and gives the reason: וה״ה בעיו״ט דיו״ט נמי מצוה לענגו ולכבדו (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ח׳). Yom Tov too carries a mitzvah of oneg and of kavod — which shows, conversely, that the institution of se’if ב does not rest on the sanctity of Shabbat as such, but on the pair oneg-kavod.
7. Brit milah and pidyon haben on Shabbat eve
The Rama’s gloss
Two words in this gloss deserve attention. שזמנה בע״ש (רמ״א או״ח רמ״ט:ב) — whose time is Shabbat eve: that is the criterion, and not the fact that the meal is one of mitzvah. And כנ״ל, “as above”, which is often dropped when the Rama is quoted: it refers back to what the Rama has already written elsewhere and ties the gloss to a general rule.
What the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah make of it
A warning about the apparatus. The Taz does not comment on this gloss. His three ס״ק on siman רמ״ט are on אסור לקבוע (ס״ק א׳), on אם לא שפירש (ס״ק ב׳) and on וי״א דלא ישלים (ס״ק ג׳) — the last two belonging to the fast of se’if ד, not to the meal of mitzvah. It is the Magen Avraham (ס״ק ה׳ and ס״ק ו׳) and the Mishnah Berurah (ס״ק י״ב and ס״ק י״ג) who comment here, and both comment on the Rama’s gloss, not on the Mechaber: their anchors are placed inside the הגה.
The Magen Avraham fixes the criterion by its two edges. What has missed its time falls back under the prohibition:
« פדיון הבן שעבר זמנו אסור לעשותו בע״ש » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ה׳)
Whereas milah, even when delayed, keeps a fixed time — because every hour is its hour.
« מקרי זמנה קבוע דכל שעתא ושעתא זמניה היא דאסור להניחו ערל » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ה׳)
And on what to do when the two meals get in each other’s way, he reports the Levush, then the Bayit Chadash:
« אם אפשר לקיים שתיהן מוטב ואם לאו תדחה סעודת שבת » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ו׳)
« וב״ח כ׳ דמצוה להתחיל קודם שעה עשירית » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ו׳)
The Mishnah Berurah takes over the Magen Avraham’s criterion and adds the lechatchilah conduct, relying on what is done for the Purim se’udah:
« אפילו אם אינה בשמיני ללידתו כגון שהיה חולה בשמיני ונדחית מ״מ מקרי זמנה קבוע » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ב)
« דהיא ג״כ סעודת מצוה ואין לדחותה מפני סעודת שבת ומ״מ לכתחלה מצוה להקדימה בשחרית משום כבוד שבת » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ג)
The Admur HaZaken states the criterion in a general form — and that is the formulation worth keeping, because it can be applied to cases the siman does not know:
« בִּסְעֻדַּת הָרְשׁוּת, אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ סְעֻדַּת מִצְוָה אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין זְמַנָּהּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִדְחוֹתָהּ לְיוֹם אַחֵר » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ו)
« מִצְוָה לְהַתְחִיל הַסְּעֻדָּה לְכַתְּחִלָּה קֹדֶם שָׁעָה עֲשִׂירִית » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ז)
« וְטוֹב שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכוֹל בִּסְעֻדָּה זוֹ אֶלָּא מִנְיָן מְצֻמְצָם » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ז)
« אֲבָל אִם אֵרַע אֵיזֶה אֹנֶס שֶׁלֹּא פְדָאוֹ בְּיוֹם ל״א — אֵין לִפְדּוֹתוֹ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלַעֲשׂוֹת אָז סְעֻדָּה שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ח)
Nafka minot.
- Brit milah on the eighth day falling on a Friday — permitted (רמ״א או״ח רמ״ט:ב), and a mitzvah lechatchilah to hold it in the morning (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ג); bedi’avad, even from minchah onward.
- Milah delayed through illness — it keeps the status of a fixed time (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ה׳; משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ב).
- Pidyon haben on the thirty-first day — its status is that of the milah se’udah (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ח).
- A pidyon prevented by an ones and performed later — it is not done on Shabbat eve with a drinking meal: since the mitzvah has already been pushed off its time, let it be pushed off Shabbat eve as well (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ה׳; שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ח).
- A shidduchin meal. The Mishnah Berurah writes: אבל בסעודה שעושין בשידוכין שלנו לא הוי סעודת מצוה (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ט׳), and accordingly it is not to be held on Shabbat eve.
- A meal of mitzvah that nothing ties to that day — it falls under the Admur HaZaken’s criterion, which speaks expressly of סְעֻדַּת מִצְוָה אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין זְמַנָּהּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ו). How that criterion applies to a siyum masekhet is discussed among the poskim, and siman רמ״ט does not settle it: it will not be settled here.
- The number of guests — the Admur HaZaken advises keeping to a bare minyan, apart from those whom the meal concerns (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ז).
8. The fast of the anshei ma’aseh — source and definition
The source, and the difficulty the Beit Yosef finds in it
Se’if ג runs to seven words, and it is taken from the Tur. The Tur, however, writes something else — the whole day — and, above all, he supports his statement with a proof.
« ויראה שדרך אנשי מעשה להתענות כל היום » (טור או״ח רמ״ט)
His proof is a question asked in Eruvin: about a bar bei rav who was fasting on Shabbat eve, is he to complete his fast? The Tur infers from it that the practice of talmidei chakhamim was indeed to fast on that day.
« בַּר בֵּי רַב דְּיָתֵיב בְּתַעֲנִיתָא בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, מַהוּ לְאַשְׁלוֹמֵי » (עירובין מ׳ ע״ב)
The Beit Yosef’s kushya on the Tur’s proof. He does not dispute it on the merits; he judges it not compelling — and says where it should have been drawn from.
« והראיה שהביא אינה מוכרחת וממקום אחר ה״ל להביא ראיה מבוארת » (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט)
« דגרסינן בירושלמי פ״ב דתענית רבי אבין ציים כל ערובא שבא » (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט)
The clear proof is in the Jerusalem Talmud, in the second perek of Ta’anit: Rabbi Avin used to fast every Shabbat eve. Note that the question in Eruvin proves nothing about the practice — it merely supposes that a man happens to have fasted on that day, and asks what he must do. The distinction is fine and it tells: it is the difference between a fact and a recommended conduct.
What the Rambam says here, and what he does not
It must be said plainly, because one sometimes reads the opposite: the Rambam has no entry on this se’if. His text in Hilkhot Shabbat, perek ל, deals with the meal of Shabbat eve — the one quoted in section 4 — and not with a fast. And his Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, perek ה, deal with Tisha be’Av. Neither bears on fasting on Shabbat eve.
The Rambam will nonetheless reappear in this file, but by another door: it is on his Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, perek ה, that the Maggid Mishneh reports the Ra’avad’s view of what משלים means — and that is read in section 9. To quote here “the Rambam’s view on fasting on Shabbat eve” would be to manufacture an entry in order to fill a column.
What the poskim hold — and the reversal by the Acharonim
This is where the siman turns over. The Mechaber writes that the way of the anshei ma’aseh is to fast every Shabbat eve. The Acharonim report exactly the opposite view.
« והב״ח כ׳ בשם הפוסקים והירושלמי דאסור להתענות בע״ש שלא יכנס לשבת כשהוא מעונה » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ז׳)
The Bayit Chadash, in the name of the poskim and of the Yerushalmi, forbids fasting on Shabbat eve, so as not to enter Shabbat מעונה — worn down by the fast. And the Magen Avraham must then account for the Rabbi Avin of the Yerushalmi, the very proof the Beit Yosef had brought.
« וצ״ל דהא דר׳ אבין ציים כל ע״ש היינו משום שהיה איסטניס ואם היה אוכל ביום לא היה אוכל בלילה לתיאבון » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ז׳)
Rabbi Avin fasted because he was an istenis: had he eaten during the day, he would not have eaten at night with an appetite. The Beit Yosef’s proof is thus turned into its opposite — it no longer grounds a practice of piety, it describes a constitution.
The Mishnah Berurah first gives the reason for the practice, then records the reversal and states it as an agreement among the Acharonim:
« כדי שיהיו תאבים לאכול בלילה » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ח)
« ועיין בב״ח ומ״א וש״א שהסכימו דאין להתענות בע״ש כדי שלא יכנס לשבת כשהוא מעונה אם לא שהוא איסטניס כ״כ שאם יאכל ביום לא יוכל לאכול בלילה לתאבון אז מנהג טוב הוא אם אין מזיק לו התענית » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ח)
Yesod. Se’if ג and the apparatus that comments on it do not contradict one another about the end — both want a man to enter Shabbat with an appetite. They differ about the means. The Mechaber reports a practice in which the fast produces that appetite; the Bayit Chadash, the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah answer that the fast rather produces the state of מעונה, which is the opposite of what is sought. תאב is not מעונה, and the whole disagreement lies in the distance between those two words.
9. The Rishonim on מתענה ומשלים — the Rosh, the Ra’avad and those who differ
The question in Eruvin — must he complete his fast? — receives a two-word answer in the Gemara, and those two words are ambiguous.
« אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מִתְעַנֶּה וּמַשְׁלִים » (עירובין מ״א ע״א)
“He fasts and completes.” Is that a permission or an obligation? The Beit Yosef sets out both camps, and this is the real seat of the Rishonim’s machloket on this siman.
First camp — it is a permission. « פירוש אם ירצה כלומר אבל אינו חייב להשלים כן פירשו התו׳ והמרדכי בס״פ בכל מערבין והרא״ש בספ״ב דתענית » (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט). Tosafot, the Mordechai at the end of perek Bechol Me’arvin, the Rosh at the end of the second perek of Ta’anit and the Hagahot Maimoniyot on the first perek of Hilkhot Ta’anit read it as: if he wishes. He is not bound to complete.
Second camp — it is an obligation. « ולא כראבי״ה והרוקח שכתבו שצריך להשלים » (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט). The Ravyah and the Rokeach write that he must complete.
A third reading — the Ra’avad, through the Maggid Mishneh. « וה״ה כתב בפ״ה בשם הראב״ד שלא אמרו משלים אלא שאינו אוכל קודם שקיעת החמה אבל ודאי משתשקע החמה מתוס׳ שבת הוא וכבר קדש היום אם רצה לאכול אוכל » (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט). משלים means neither the one nor the other: it means only that he does not eat before sunset — but once the sun has set it is already tosefet Shabbat, the day has been sanctified, and if he wishes to eat he eats.
What that third reading changes. The first two camps dispute the rank of completion — permission or duty. The Ra’avad shifts the question to its object: to complete is not to reach the emergence of the stars, it is not to break before sunset. And he gives a reason of principle — שכיון שנכנס לתוס׳ שבת שוב אינו רשאי להתענות (בית יוסף או״ח רמ״ט), once he has entered the addition to Shabbat he is no longer permitted to fast. The fast does not stop because it has been accomplished: it stops because Shabbat has begun. Exactly that movement will be found again in the Rama’s gloss on se’if ד.
10. An individual’s fast, a communal fast — the Rama’s gloss on the Mechaber
The Mechaber’s wording
The second half of this se’if is decisive, and it is rarely quoted. The Mechaber does not impose completion without remedy: he himself opens the door of the condition. One who, when accepting the fast, stipulated that he would fast until the congregation had completed its prayer need not go on to the emergence of the stars. Any presentation that sets “the Mechaber requires completion” against “the Rama exempts” is therefore too simple: the Mechaber exempts as well, but he asks that it have been said.
The Mishnah Berurah sets out the scope of that condition:
« ואז מותר אפילו עוד היום גדול וכן אם התנה להתענות רק עד אחר מנחה גדולה מהני תנאו » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ׳)
And the Taz adds a point of conduct which is properly a lechatchilah: since the condition is available, better not to accept the fast in unqualified terms.
« דוקא אם כבר פי׳ בסתם אבל לכתחלה לא יאמר בסתם כדי שישלים דלמה יקבל עליו בתחלה להתענות מקצת שבת » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ב׳)
Why would one accept from the outset to fast into part of Shabbat? The Taz’s question is not rhetorical: it presupposes that the time between accepting Shabbat and the emergence of the stars is already Shabbat — which is precisely the Ra’avad’s position reported in section 9.
The Rama’s gloss
(The source parentheses the Rama inserts in the middle of his gloss — Tur, Mordechai, Hagahot Maimoniyot, then the Maharil’s responsum — are cut here by the ellipses; they are not part of the rule.)
Chakira. Why are the individual and the community not treated alike?
- First limb — an individual’s fast is a personal acceptance, and therefore something he disposes of; a communal fast is a decree, which is not his.
- Second limb — the difference lies not in the nature of the fast but in the efficacy of the condition: an individual can condition what he takes upon himself, a community cannot, since the matter does not depend on him.
The Magen Avraham and then the Mishnah Berurah decide by the second limb, and say so in the same words.
« משמע מל׳ רמ״א דבת״צ לא מהני תנאי דלאו בדידיה תליא מלתא » (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ח׳)
« ובת״צ חמירא מזה וצריך להשלים כדין ואפילו תנאי לא מהני דלאו בדידיה תליא מילתא » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״א)
לאו בדידיה תליא מילתא — the matter does not depend on him. That is the reason, and it is of the same order as the Ra’avad’s: what governs is not the will of the one fasting, it is the status of the time.
What the י״א’s exemption rests on. The Mishnah Berurah explains that those poskim do not exempt from completion: they hold that completion has been reached, because the congregation has already accepted Shabbat in its prayer from plag haminchah.
« דאז כבר קבלו שבת בתפלה שמתפללים מפלג המנחה ואילך » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״א)
One then sees what truly separates the two views: not stringency, but the definition of what a completed day is. For the Mechaber the day ends at the stars; for the י״א it ends at the acceptance of Shabbat. And the Mishnah Berurah adds that on a weekday even those poskim require the emergence of the stars — which confirms that their reason is peculiar to Shabbat eve.
Nafka minot.
- What is called an individual’s fast? The Mishnah Berurah defines it: תענית יחיד נקרא מי שקיבל על עצמו להתענות בע״ש זה או שדרכו להתענות בכל ע״ש (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״ב) — one who took upon himself to fast on that particular Shabbat eve, or whose practice it is to fast every Shabbat eve.
- A communal fast falling on a Friday — one completes, and a condition is of no avail (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״א; מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ח׳).
- The first completion creates a practice. The Magen Avraham writes: ונ״ל דאם מתענה בכל ע״ש והשלים בפעם ראשון צריך לנהוג כן לעולם (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ח׳). The Admur HaZaken takes it up and gives it its exact status: אִם בַּפַּעַם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁאֵרַע הַתַּעֲנִית בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הִשְׁלִימוֹ עַד צֵאת הַכּוֹכָבִים — צָרִיךְ לִנְהוֹג כֵּן לְעוֹלָם (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ג) — it is like a vow, and three men are needed to release him from it.
- And that same se’if does not close on the stringency. The Admur HaZaken brings dissenters there — « וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין בְּזֶה » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ג) — for whom even a completion that occurred on a weekday, the first time, makes a vow and obliges him to complete also when the fast falls on a Friday; then, after writing « וְכֵן נָהֲגוּ הָעוֹלָם » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ג), “and so the world has practised”, he ends in parentheses — « וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הַמֵּקֵל לְעֵת הַצֹּרֶךְ כִּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — לֹא הִפְסִיד » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ג), one who is lenient at a time of need according to the first view has lost nothing. The first sevara and those who dispute it stand within a single se’if, and we do not decide between them.
- And hence a counsel of the Mishnah Berurah. ולכתחלה יותר טוב שלא ישלים בפעם ראשון כשחל בע״ש (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״ב) — lechatchilah it is better not to complete the first time the fast falls on a Shabbat eve, so as not to be bound to complete it always.
11. Ta’anit chalom on Shabbat eve — nafka minot
This line is the Mechaber’s: the Rama’s gloss has closed before it. The Mishnah Berurah confirms as much by writing that the Acharonim agreed עם השו״ע.
Chakira. Why is the dream fast tied to the emergence of the stars, when an individual’s accepted fast may stop at leaving the synagogue? Is it because it is graver, or because it obeys a logic other than that of completion?
Terutz. The Mishnah Berurah answers that this is not a matter of rank but of danger: the dream fast is there to annul and burn away a bad dream, and one fears it will not succeed if he does not go on until night.
« אבל האחרונים הסכימו עם השו״ע דאין להקל בזה דכיון שהוא מפני הסכנה לבטל ולבער חלום רע » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״ג)
So it is not the completion of the day that is at stake, it is the efficacy of the act. Which at once explains the Mishnah Berurah’s a fortiori: since a dream fast may even be begun on Shabbat itself, all the more may it be carried on until Friday night.
And yet it is not unanimous. The Mishnah Berurah herself reports the contrary view before setting it aside:
« והנה יש מהפוסקים שחולקין וסוברין דגם בתענית חלום די להמתין עד שיצא מבהכ״נ ערבית » (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״ג)
And the Taz, for his part, observes that the Rama’s distinction between individual and community decides nothing for the dream fast — it is the practice, not the reasoning, that answered there.
« ובמ״ש רמ״א לחלק בין תענית יחיד לצבור אין הכרעה לתענית חלום אבל המנהג פשוט בינינו להשלים בתענית חלום אפי׳ בע״ש » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳)
Two remarks of the Taz that would be a pity to leave aside. The first concerns one whom the fast makes suffer: « אני אומר דהמיקל בדבר שלא להשלים בע״ש לא הפסיד בפרט מי שמצטער בתעניתו לא יצטער בהתחלת שבת » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳) — one who is lenient and does not complete on Shabbat eve has lost nothing, especially one who suffers from his fast, so that he should not suffer at the beginning of Shabbat. The second returns to the bar bei rav of Eruvin and narrows its reach: « היינו דוק׳ באותן שמכירים בעצמן שאחר התענית יהיו תאבים לאכול משא״כ באותן שהם חלשים אחר התענית והאכילה אינה נוחה כל כך עליהם לא יתענו » (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳). The Shabbat-eve fast holds only for those who know themselves well enough to be sure they will be hungry afterwards; one whom it weakens will not fast. In the Taz one finds again the Magen Avraham’s istenis — by another road and with another practical conclusion.
Nafka minot for practice.
- Ta’anit chalom on a Friday — one fasts until the emergence of the stars (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ד), and according to the Mishnah Berurah even the י״א concede.
- And afterwards? Once the stars are out it is Shabbat: he makes kiddush and takes the evening meal. The prohibition of se’if ב does not stand in the way at all: it bears on what one fixes on the eve of Shabbat, not on the Shabbat meal itself — which is a mitzvah. Se’if ב and se’if ד aim together at the same result: to come to the Shabbat meal with an appetite.
- One whom the fast exhausts — the Taz writes that he has lost nothing by not completing (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳), and the Mishnah Berurah, for an individual’s fast, permits relying on the lenient (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״ב). Both leniencies bear on the accepted fast, not on the dream fast.
12. What the apparatus decides — the Admur HaZaken and the Acharonim
The psak of the Shulchan Arukh HaRav
The Admur HaZaken devotes two whole se’ifim to fasting on Shabbat eve — se’ifim י״ב and י״ג of his siman רמ״ט — and takes a clear position there, in the line of the Bayit Chadash and the Magen Avraham.
« אֵין קוֹבְעִים תַּעֲנִית לְכַתְּחִלָּה בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם מְעַט קֹדֶם קַבָּלַת שַׁבָּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס לְשַׁבָּת כְּשֶׁהוּא מְעֻנֶּה » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ב)
One does not set a fast lechatchilah on Shabbat eve — unless he tastes a little before accepting Shabbat, so as not to enter it worn down by the fast.
« אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא אִיסְטְנִיס, שֶׁכְּשֶׁאוֹכֵל בַּיּוֹם אֲפִלּוּ מְעַט — לֹא יֹאכַל בַּלַּיְלָה לְתֵאָבוֹן » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ב)
Unless he is an istenis, to the point that eating during the day would keep him from eating at night with an appetite — which is exactly the Magen Avraham’s terutz on Rabbi Avin, here turned into a rule.
« בְּתַעֲנִית יָחִיד שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהִתְעַנּוֹת אוֹתוֹ תַעֲנִית בְּיוֹם אַחֵר » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ב) — the restriction bears only on an individual’s fast that has no fixed date. « אֲבָל אִם זְמַנּוֹ הוּא בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, כְּגוֹן הַמִּתְעַנֶּה תַּעֲנִיּוֹת שֶׁל יְמֵי מִיתַת הַצַּדִּיקִים » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ב): one whose time is precisely that day need not postpone it.
« לְפִי שֶׁאִסּוּר זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס לְשַׁבָּת כְּשֶׁהוּא מְעֻנֶּה אִסּוּר קַל הוּא » (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ב)
And the reason a fast with a fixed date is not postponed: the prohibition of entering Shabbat worn down by the fast is a light prohibition. Note the methodological consequence — the Admur HaZaken does not deny the prohibition, he weighs its rank. It yields to a fixed date because it is light, not because it does not exist.
What the Acharonim decide, and what they leave open
| Who | On what | What he writes |
|---|---|---|
| Magen Avraham ס״ק ז׳ | Fasting on Shabbat eve | Reports the ב״ח who forbids it; explains Rabbi Avin by the istenis, and concludes וכן עיקר |
| Taz ס״ק ג׳ | Completing the fast | One who does not complete on Shabbat eve has lost nothing, especially if he suffers from it; and the practice is to complete a dream fast |
| Mishnah Berurah ס״ק י״ח | Se’if ג itself | The Acharonim agree not to fast, except for an istenis; then it is a good practice, if the fast does him no harm |
| Mishnah Berurah ס״ק י״ט | The rank of entering Shabbat | ואינו נחשב לאיסור במה שנכנס לשבת כשהוא מעונה אע״ג דביום השבת גופא אסור להתענות (מ״ב רמ״ט:י״ט) — it is not reckoned a prohibition, although fasting on Shabbat itself is forbidden |
| Shulchan Arukh HaRav רמ״ט:י״ב | The same | No fast lechatchilah, unless he tastes beforehand, or for an istenis; the prohibition is אִסּוּר קַל |
This table lists only the entries of apparatus that siman רמ״ט itself carries. No row has been added for works that have no entry here: an honest column is worth more than a full one.
The yesod of the siman. Three questions, seemingly unrelated — the road, the meal, the fast — and a single point of application: the state in which one enters Shabbat.
Se’if א wants him to enter it prepared. Se’if ב wants him to enter it תאב לאכול, with an appetite. Se’if ג reports a practice that seeks the same appetite through fasting — and se’ifim ג and ד, read with their apparatus, set the limit: שלא יכנס לשבת כשהוא מעונה, but not worn down by the fast.
The whole siman lies in the gap between תאב and מעונה. It is a gap of degree, it has no written measure, and that is why the apparatus returns to it so often — in the Magen Avraham through the istenis, in the Taz through the man who grows weak, in the Admur HaZaken through tasting a little before accepting Shabbat.
Nafka minot for practice
1. A long journey on Shabbat eve. The limit is counted from daybreak and amounts to about a third of the day (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳); in a vehicle one may go further, provided he arrives בעוד היום גדול (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק א׳). The Mishnah Berurah adds that today, when people prepare amply, this din is no longer observed — but that one must still take care not to travel until evening, this time because of chillul Shabbat (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳). The conversions into kilometres do not come from this siman.
2. A festive meal on a Friday. The criterion is not that it is a mitzvah, it is that its time falls on that day (רמ״א או״ח רמ״ט:ב; שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ו). Brit milah and pidyon haben in their time: permitted. What has missed its time: not (מג״א או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ה׳).
3. When to hold it. A mitzvah lechatchilah to bring it forward to the morning, as with the Purim se’udah (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ג); the Admur HaZaken writes: before the tenth hour (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:ז).
4. An ordinary meal on a Friday afternoon. Permitted min hadin all day; a mitzvah to refrain from the ninth hour, in zemaniyot hours (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ב; משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק י״ז). One who has begun does not interrupt (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ט״ז).
5. A communal fast falling on a Friday. One completes until the emergence of the stars, and a condition changes nothing (משנה ברורה או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק כ״א).
6. A personal fast falling on a Friday. The Rama permits not completing, and it is good to stipulate so when accepting the fast (רמ״א או״ח רמ״ט:ד); the Mechaber requires the stipulation (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ד). Note: a first completion that occurred on a Friday binds for ever, in the manner of a vow. Where the first completion took place on a weekday, that same se’if brings two views — for the first there is no vow there binding him on a Friday, those who dispute it hold that there is —, writes that the practice of the world followed the latter, and then adds that one who is lenient on this point, at a time of need, according to the first view, has lost nothing (שו״ע הרב רמ״ט:י״ג).
7. Ta’anit chalom. Until the emergence of the stars (שו״ע או״ח רמ״ט:ד), and the practice reported by the Taz is to complete it even on Shabbat eve (ט״ז או״ח רמ״ט ס״ק ג׳).
Going further
Level 3 — Synthesis: a structured recap, memory markers, decision trees and rules of thumb.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Admur HaZaken (Shulchan Arukh HaRav), se’if by se’if.