Siman 251 — Lamdan level: when Friday stops being an ordinary day
In-depth pilpul
The sugya of Pesahim 50b, the ḥakira on the “sign of blessing”,
and the two readings of the word “mincha”
📑 Table of contents
- The sugya — the beraita of Pesahim 50b and what it actually says
- Fundamental ḥakira on the sign of blessing — prohibition or loss?
- Mincha gedola and mincha ketana — the two clocks
- The “mincha gedola” reading — the Maharam in the Mordechai, and the Tur
- The “mincha ketana” reading — Rashi, and the Taz’s kashya
- What the Shulchan Aruch rules — the two readings side by side
- Ḥakira keva / arai — the Rama’s gloss and its source
- Nafka mina: writing a letter
- Seif ב — clothes, barber, writing
- Writing for another for pay — the Rama, and the sofer of the Mishnah Berurah
- Cutting back a little on study — Yerushalmi, Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah
- Practical nafka minot
📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — 2 seifim
The siman consists of two seifim, and each carries a gloss of the Rama — which Sefaria renders, inside the seif itself, in a small tag opened by הגה. Knowing where the Mechaber ends and the Rama begins governs everything that follows: the keva / arai distinction, which is the practical heart of the siman, belongs to the Rama, and the Mechaber does not know it.
Seif א — the Mechaber
« העושה מלאכה בערב שבת מן המנחה ולמעלה אינו רואה סימן ברכה יש מפרשים מנחה גדולה ויש מפרשים מנחה קטנה » (שו״ע או״ח רנ״א:א)
summary: one who does work on Friday from mincha onward sees no sign of blessing; some read “mincha” as mincha gedola, others as mincha ketana.
Seif א — the Rama’s gloss
« ודוקא כשעושה מלאכה דרך קבע אבל אם עושה אותה דרך עראי לפי שעה ולא קבע עליה שרי… ולכן מותר לכתוב אגרת שלומים וכל כיוצא בזה » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:א — ב״י בשם א״ז / ד״ע)
summary: this applies only to work done in a fixed way; done occasionally, for the moment, without settling into it, it is permitted — and that is why one may write a letter of greetings. The Rama gives his own source: the Beit Yosef in the name of the א״ז.
Seif ב — the Mechaber, then the Rama
« לתקן בגדיו וכליו לצורך שבת מותר כל היום » (שו״ע או״ח רנ״א:ב)
« וה״ה בגדי חבירו אם הוא לצורך שבת ואינו נוטל עליו שכר ב״י » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב)
« והוא הדין למי שכותב ספרים לעצמו דרך לימודו » (שו״ע או״ח רנ״א:ב)
« אבל אסור לכתוב לחבירו בשכר » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב — מרדכי פ׳ מקום שנהגו)
« ומסתפרין כל היום אפי׳ מספר ישראל » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב — כל בו וב״י)
« ויש לאדם למעט קצת בלמודו בע״ש כדי שיכין צרכי שבת » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב — ש״ג פי״ו דשבת ירוש׳ פ״ק דתענית)
summary: mending one’s clothes and utensils for Shabbat is permitted all day; the Rama extends this to another’s clothes, provided it is for Shabbat and without pay. Writing books for oneself, in the course of one’s study, is permitted (Mechaber); writing for another for pay is forbidden (Rama). One may have one’s hair cut all day, even by a Jewish barber. And one should cut back a little on study on Friday in order to prepare the needs of Shabbat.
1. The sugya — Pesahim 50b
The text of the beraita
The beraita does not appear in our sugya as a free-standing teaching: it is brought there as an objection. The mishnah of the chapter מקום שנהגו says that where the custom is to work on the eve of Pesach until midday, one works — and the gemara immediately asks: why speak of the eve of Pesach? The eves of Shabbat and festivals as well!
« הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה סִימַן בְּרָכָה לְעוֹלָם » (פסחים נ׳ ע״ב)
The gemara answers in two steps, and both answers govern the rest of the siman. First answer: there (Shabbat eve) it is “from mincha onward” that is forbidden, but just before mincha it is permitted; here (Pesach eve) it is from midday. Second answer: there, he only fails to see the sign of blessing, and he is not placed under ban; here, he is placed under ban. These two answers are the material of the two sections that follow: the first grounds the machloket about the hour, the second grounds the ḥakira about the nature of the matter.
What the beraita says, and what it does not. It puts the eve of Shabbat and the eve of a festival on one footing. It uses neither the word אסור nor חייב: it describes a consequence, אינו רואה סימן ברכה (פסחים נ׳ ע״ב) — he sees no sign of blessing. Further down the same page the same formula is used of one who relies on his wife’s wages or on the rent of his mill, and of one who profits from reeds and jars: this is a family of statements about gain that does not prosper, not a family of prohibitions.
The version called גופא, a little further down the same page, is broader than the one brought as an objection: it adds the departures of Shabbat, of festivals and of Yom Kippur, and every place where there is a trace of transgression. Our siman retains only the eve of Shabbat.
« וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת וּבְמוֹצָאֵי יוֹם טוֹב וּבְמוֹצָאֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם נִידְנוּד עֲבֵירָה, לְאֵתוֹיֵי תַּעֲנִית צִיבּוּר » (פסחים נ׳ ע״ב)
2. Fundamental ḥakira — a prohibition, or merely a loss?
Ḥakira. What is אינו רואה סימן ברכה (שו״ע או״ח רנ״א:א)? A genuine rabbinic prohibition whose sanction happens to be stated in terms of loss — or no prohibition at all, merely the announcement that this gain will not prosper?
- First side — a prohibition. That there is something to be prevented, and not merely something to be discouraged.
- Second side — a loss, not a prohibition. The beraita describes an outcome; one who incurs it has transgressed no decree.
- Middle side — a prohibition without sanction. He is prevented from doing it, but not punished for having done it.
All three sides have a witness in the commentary on this very siman.
« ולענין הלכה כיון דאין כאן איסור אלא להיות׳ דאין בו סימן ברכה הסומך על רש״י לא הפסיד הברכה ח״ו » (ט״ז או״ח רנ״א ס״ק א)
« ומונעין אותו אבל אין עונשין אותו » (מגן אברהם או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ב — סמ״ג)
« כי משמע מכמה פוסקים דמלבד דאין רואה סימן ברכה יש חשש איסור בזה [פמ״ג] » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ה)
Yesod. The Shulchan Aruch does not use the word אסור in seif א: it copies the beraita’s consequence. It is the commentators who divide over what that consequence is worth, and the line of division is exactly that of the gemara’s second answer — שַׁמּוֹתֵי לָא מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיה (פסחים נ׳ ע״ב). The question remains open in the commentators, and this level does not close it.
Nafka mina. If it is only a loss of blessing, one who accepts to lose it has broken nothing, and he is not prevented. If it is a prohibition, he is prevented — which is exactly what the Semag quoted above says — and the further question arises whether a third party may lend him a hand.
3. Mincha gedola and mincha ketana — the two clocks
The word “mincha” in the beraita denotes not a prayer but an hour, and that hour has two received boundaries. The Beit Yosef, on our siman, refers for this to the beginning of the chapter תפלת השחר.
« וזמן מנחה גדולה מו׳ שעות ומחצה הוא דהויא כדאיתא בר״פ תפלת השחר » (בית יוסף או״ח רנ״א — ברכות כו:)
The Mishnah Berurah gives the two boundaries one after the other, and adds the precision without which the table below would make no sense: these are proportional hours, not clock hours.
« היינו בשש ומחצה ומנחה קטנה היינו תשע ומחצה והסומך על המקילין לא הפסיד והשעות הם זמניות » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ג)
| Mincha gedola | Mincha ketana | |
|---|---|---|
| Proportional hour | 6½ (end of the sixth and a half hour) | 9½ (end of the ninth and a half hour) |
| Order of magnitude, winter | ~ 12:30 | ~ 15:00 |
| Order of magnitude, summer | ~ 13:00 | ~ 16:00 |
| Source of the boundary | Berakhot 26b, per the Beit Yosef quoted above | |
The two clock-hour rows are orders of magnitude for a middle latitude, not a datum of the sources: the proportional hour changes every day, and the calculation is made for the place and the date.
4. The “mincha gedola” reading — the Maharam in the Mordechai, and the Tur
« ומ״ש מו׳ שעות ומחצה ולמעלה כ״כ שם מרדכי בשם הר״מ » (בית יוסף או״ח רנ״א)
« אבל מהר״ם במרדכי והטור פי׳ דגם בע״ש היה השיעור מ״ג דהיינו ו׳ ומחצה » (ט״ז או״ח רנ״א ס״ק א)
This reading has the plain sense of the gemara in its favour: the question “why speak of Pesach eve?” only has force if the two eves closely resemble one another. The Taz indeed writes of this path that it is correct and straightforward on a plain reading of the Talmud. Against it stands the fact that “mincha”, in the parallel beraita about eating before Shabbat, is understood as mincha ketana — an argument the Taz ascribes to Rashi, and which is the matter of the next section.
5. The “mincha ketana” reading — Rashi, and the Taz’s kashya
« ופרש״י התם מן המנחה ט׳ שעות ומחצה » (ט״ז או״ח רנ״א ס״ק א)
The Beit Yosef reports the same thing, with a variant reading: he reads “nine hours” in Rashi, while Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi — the מהרא״מ, in his glosses on the Semag — read “nine and a half hours”, and the Beit Yosef discusses which of the two readings accounts for the gemara. The Taz for his part writes that the Beit Yosef brought the view of the Semag and that of the מהרא״מ, who write so in the name of Rashi.
The Taz’s kashya on Rashi. If on Pesach eve the prohibition begins at midday and on Shabbat eve only at mincha ketana, the gap between them is enormous — and then the gemara’s very question collapses: why ask “why Pesach eve?” if the two days are not comparable at all?
« ואיכא למידק לפרש״י דיש חילוק גדול דבע״פ אסור מחצות דהוא אחר ו׳ שעות ובע״ש אין איסור אלא ממנחה קטנה א״כ מאי פריך המקשן » (ט״ז או״ח רנ״א ס״ק א)
The Taz’s teruts. The Taz answers by re-reading what the questioner is actually asking. He was not asking that the two days be taught under a single measure; he was asking that they be taught together, each according to its own — Shabbat eve from mincha ketana, Pesach eve from midday. The mishnah mentioned only midday, that is, only the measure of Pesach eve: that is the question. And the gemara’s answer then falls exactly into place: the measures are not of the same kind, since on Shabbat eve the immediately preceding time remains permitted, whereas on Pesach eve it is already taken.
« דלא בעי לאקשוי ליתני ע״ש בהדי ע״פ בחדא מחתא בחדא שיעורא דודאי בע״ש שיעור שלה מנחה קטנה ובע״פ עד חצות » (ט״ז או״ח רנ״א ס״ק א)
The Magen Avraham does not attack the “mincha gedola” reading from the sugya, but from two other places, and he places an explicit צ״ע upon it.
« היינו בשש ומחצה וצ״ע » (מגן אברהם או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ד)
His two difficulties: first, the gemara describes a second shofar blast meant to make the town and its shops cease work, and that second blast is well after mincha gedola — a sign that work was still being done afterwards; second, the tractate of civil law teaches, in the name of the Yerushalmi, that a labourer must work for his employer almost until sunset. He offers a way of reconciling the second difficulty — the Yerushalmi would be speaking of the employer’s right, without denying the loss of the blessing — but writes that the first difficulty stands entire, and concludes:
« לכן נ״ל כמ״ד מנחה קטנה » (מגן אברהם או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ד)
6. What the Shulchan Aruch rules — the two readings side by side
« יש מפרשים מנחה גדולה ויש מפרשים מנחה קטנה » (שו״ע או״ח רנ״א:א)
What the three commentators of this siman then say, each in his own words.
- The Taz: since there is no prohibition here but only the absence of a sign of blessing, one who relies on Rashi — hence on mincha ketana — has not lost the blessing, Heaven forbid (ט״ז רנ״א ס״ק א, quoted in section 2).
- The Magen Avraham: after his two difficulties, he writes that in his view the law follows the one who says mincha ketana (quoted in section 5).
- The Mishnah Berurah: one who relies on the lenient views has lost nothing (quoted in section 3).
Yesod. All three say the same thing in the same order: the strict boundary is mincha gedola, and that is the one taken when one wishes to be on the safe side; but none of the three writes that one who works between the two boundaries has done something wrong. That silence is not an oversight: it follows directly from the ḥakira of section 2 — one cannot be strict out of caution against a loss of blessing as one is against a prohibition.
7. Ḥakira keva / arai — the Rama’s gloss and its source
The text of the Rama
« ודוקא כשעושה מלאכה דרך קבע אבל אם עושה אותה דרך עראי לפי שעה ולא קבע עליה שרי… ולכן מותר לכתוב אגרת שלומים וכל כיוצא בזה » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:א — ב״י בשם א״ז / ד״ע)
Ḥakira. What makes work דרך קבע rather than דרך עראי? Three sides present themselves, and they do not coincide.
- The professional side — keva would be the work of one’s trade, arai a personal or isolated act.
- The temporal side — keva would be what lasts, arai what is done לפי שעה, the Rama’s own expression.
- The side of the end pursued — keva would be what one does to earn a living, arai what one does for oneself or for another without gain.
The Mishnah Berurah settles one of the three sides. On the very words דרך עראי she lays down four words that exclude the criterion of gain: the occasional remains permitted even for pay. Pay alone therefore does not make keva.
« היינו אפילו בשכר » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ד)
Immediate nafka mina. A man who is not of the trade renders a paid service, once, on Friday afternoon: the criterion of gain would forbid it, the Mishnah Berurah permits it. The converse question remains entirely open — the tradesman who performs, once and for free, an act of his trade — on which the Mishnah Berurah does not pronounce here, and which this level leaves open.
« רבינו תם ז״ל פי׳ הטעם למה אסור לעשות מלאכה בערב שבת מן המנחה ולמעלה משום כבוד שבת וי״ט שמוסיפי׳ מחול על הקודש » (האגור הלכות שבת ש״נ)
8. Nafka mina: writing a letter
The case the Rama chooses himself. He does not choose a borderline case: he takes writing, which is work in the full sense, and which would therefore be forbidden if the boundary of seif א bore on the act. The very fact that he permits אגרת שלומים — a letter of greetings — is the demonstration that the boundary bears on the manner.
- On the Mechaber alone, without the gloss: nothing in seif א distinguishes, and writing would fall under the general rule.
- On the Rama: permitted, because it is לפי שעה and one does not settle into it.
The dividing line, transposed. The Rama’s criterion is not the medium but the settling in: what belongs to sustained work falls on the keva side, what is done “for the moment” falls on the arai side — and the Mishnah Berurah has just added that being paid does not suffice to tip it over. Seif ב gives this line two named applications, and that is the road to take before drawing new cases from it.
9. Seif ב — clothes, barber, writing
Mending one’s clothes and utensils
« לתקן בגדיו וכליו לצורך שבת מותר כל היום » (שו״ע או״ח רנ״א:ב)
« כתב רבינו אבי העזרי ז״ל דוקא העושה מלאכה להשתכר אבל מתקן הוא כליו ובגדיו לשבת ויום טוב וכן מי שכותב לעצמו ספרים דרך לימודו מותר כל היום » (רא״ש פסחים פ״ד סימן ב)
« וה״ה בגדי חבירו אם הוא לצורך שבת ואינו נוטל עליו שכר ב״י » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב)
« נ״ל אם הוא עני ורוצה להוציא השכר שיטול לצורך שבת דמותר » (ט״ז או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ב)
Having one’s hair cut
« ומסתפרין כל היום אפי׳ מספר ישראל » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב — כל בו וב״י)
« וכתב הכלבו בסי׳ נ״ח נראה שאסור לספר מספר ישראל בע״ש וי״ט מן המנחה ולמעלה » (בית יוסף או״ח רנ״א)
The Magen Avraham, on these words, gives the reason for the permission and at once draws from it a consequence that goes further than the Kol Bo: since it is for Shabbat, it is permitted even when taking pay.
« ונ״ל טעם ההיתר כיון שהיא לצורך שבת שרי אפי׳ נוטל שכר » (מגן אברהם או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ה)
Kashya. But mending another’s clothes for pay is forbidden, and for Shabbat too — that is the very condition the Rama has just laid down. Why should the barber be treated otherwise?
The Magen Avraham’s teruts. The difference lies neither in the act nor in the pay, but in what is visible: a haircut is visibly done for Shabbat, sewing is not.
« ואף על גב דבתיקון בגדים אסור ליטול שכר אפי׳ לצורך שבת שאני תספורת דניכר לכל שהי׳ צורך שבת » (מגן אברהם או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ה)
The Mishnah Berurah takes up exactly this teruts, and draws a limit from it in the same breath: what licenses the pay is that the purpose be visible — hence one must take care not to shave a non-Jew, where nothing is visible.
« היינו אפילו אם הספר נוטל שכר והטעם נראה לכל שעושה המסתפר לצורך שבת ולכן שרי ולא דמי לתיקון בגדים שאסור בנטילת שכר דהתם אין ניכר בפעולה שהוא לצורך שבת משא״כ בזה » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ז)
« כתב המ״א שהאר״י ז״ל היה נזהר שלא לגלח אחר מנחה אפילו בע״ש » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ז)
Writing for oneself, in the course of one’s study
« והוא הדין למי שכותב ספרים לעצמו דרך לימודו » (שו״ע או״ח רנ״א:ב)
Two words do all the work: לעצמו, for himself, and דרך לימודו, in the course of his study. They match exactly the criterion of the אבי העזרי quoted above — what is at issue is work done להשתכר — and they prepare the Rama’s next gloss, which takes the opposite case.
10. Writing for another for pay — the Rama, and the sofer of the Mishnah Berurah
« אבל אסור לכתוב לחבירו בשכר » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב — מרדכי פ׳ מקום שנהגו)
The gloss is the exact mirror of the preceding sentence: לעצמו against לחבירו, דרך לימודו against בשכר. The two halves are not independent: it is because he writes for another and is paid that the act leaves study for trade.
« לכן יזהר ג״כ הכותב סת״ם שלא יכתוב בשכר אם לא שהוא צריך עתה למזוזה או ס״ת או תפלין או שהוא דחוק לצרכי שבת » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ו)
Where the line runs exactly, according to the commentators on this siman.
- Pay alone does not suffice to make keva — דרך עראי remains permitted even for pay (משנה ברורה רנ״א ס״ק ד, quoted in section 7).
- The purpose of Shabbat alone does not suffice either to license pay: for another’s clothes the Rama excludes it, and the Magen Avraham recalls that there pay remains forbidden even for Shabbat (quoted in section 9).
- What tipped the barber onto the permitted side is that the purpose is visible. The paid sofer is the opposite: nothing in his act says Shabbat, and that is why the Mishnah Berurah excepts him only where a present need can be named.
Nafka mina. The student who copies for a classmate, free of charge, falls on the לחבירו side but not on the בשכר side: the Rama’s gloss takes the two together, and this level does not decide what one half alone yields. The paid sofer, by contrast, is named expressly by the Mishnah Berurah, with her exceptions.
11. Cutting back a little on study — Yerushalmi, Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah
« ויש לאדם למעט קצת בלמודו בע״ש כדי שיכין צרכי שבת » (רמ״א או״ח רנ״א:ב — ש״ג פי״ו דשבת ירוש׳ פ״ק דתענית)
Ḥakira. This is a surprising statement: ordinarily study does not yield to what someone else could do in our place. What is it about Friday that makes it yield? Two sides.
- The time — it would be the nearness of Shabbat that presses, and the rule would hold by the hour.
- The person — it would be personal participation in the honour of Shabbat that is at stake, and the rule would hold by who prepares.
The principle. This is not study set aside for the profane: preparing for Shabbat is itself a mitzvah, so we are in the familiar case of one occupied with a mitzvah. That is also why the Rama writes קצת — a little — and not that one should break off entirely.
« הָעוֹסֵק בְּמִצְוָה פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּצְוָה » (סוכה כ״ה ע״א)
The Mishnah Berurah decides between the two sides of the ḥakira, and it is the person that prevails. If he has a servant who prepares in his stead, he need not cut back; and all the more so if he prepared from Thursday, he may study as usual. If the rule held by the hour, neither of these two cases would change anything.
« ואם יש לו משרת שיכין בשבילו אין צריך וכ״ש אם הכין ביום ה׳ בודאי יוכל ללמוד כדרכו » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ט)
But the Mishnah Berurah does not let the reasoning run to its end, and that is the fine point of the section: even discharged from the preparation, he must all the same arrange something in honour of Shabbat. It is therefore not merely that Shabbat be ready; it is that he have had a hand in it.
« מיהו מ״מ צריך לתקן איזה דבר לכבוד שבת » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ט)
« ובספר סדר היום כתב דאם רגיל ללמוד דבר שיש לו קצבה או שלומד עם רבים אל יבטלנו » (משנה ברורה או״ח רנ״א ס״ק ח)
12. Practical nafka minot
Each line below refers to the commentary entry that carries it, and to the sections where it is quoted. This level sets out a line of reasoning: it does not rule, and a real case is put to a rav.
- Sustained office work on Friday afternoon. This is the central case of seif א, and it is the one the machloket about the boundaries bears on: past mincha gedola on one reading, past mincha ketana on the other. The Taz, the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah all three lean towards the later boundary (sections 3 to 6).
- Writing a note to someone close late in the afternoon. This is the very case the Rama names — אגרת שלומים — provided it is לפי שעה and one does not settle into it (section 7).
- Mending something oneself with Shabbat in view. Permitted all day, by the Mechaber’s own text in seif ב (section 9).
- Mending another person’s object. The Rama permits it on the two cumulative conditions — for Shabbat and without pay. The Taz adds the case of the poor man who will spend that wage on Shabbat (section 9).
- Writing סת״ם for pay. Named expressly by the Mishnah Berurah, with her three exceptions: a present need for a mezuzah, a scroll or tefilin, or the pressure of the needs of Shabbat (section 10).
- Copying for oneself, in the course of one’s study. This is the Mechaber’s own case — לעצמו דרך לימודו — and both words count (section 9).
- A Jewish barber cutting hair on Friday afternoon. Permitted by the Rama, and even for pay according to the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah, because the purpose is visible; the Mishnah Berurah cautions about the non-Jew, and reports the practice of the Arizal (section 9).
- Cutting back on study in the afternoon. A little, says the Rama; not at all if he is discharged from the preparation, says the Mishnah Berurah — but he must nonetheless do something with his own hands for Shabbat (section 11).
Going further
Level 3 — Synthesis: structured recap, memory markers and decision trees.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Admour HaZaken in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.