Torah Community Connections

Week 45 - Monday - 2 October 2000

MEGILLAH: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 5

There is no difference between a Festival and the Shabbat except for man's food alone. There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur except that this one's intentional sin is by the hands of man, and this one's intentional sin is by karet.

Kehati

Incidental to the preceding mishnah, from here to the end of the chapter, various laws are quoted beginning with the phrase, "There is no difference between…except."

There is no difference between a Festival and the Shabbat - regarding prohibited activities, except for man's food alone - for on a Festival it is permitted to perform those activities necessary for the preparation of a man's food, as it is written, "save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you" (Ex. 12:16), which is not the law on Shabbat. This mishnah is quoted again in Tractate Betzah (5:2), where the Gemara explains that the mishnah is according to the opinion of Bet Shammai; the accepted law, however, is that which is voiced by Bet Hillel, that the permission to carry and make fire for the needs of a man's food is extended to include the performance of those activities not intended for the needs of a man's food, e.g., they are needed in order to perform an obligation or to provide a benefit for a person (see Betz. 1:5; 2:5).

There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur - regarding the activities prohibited on each of them, except that this one's intentional sin is by the hands of man - if one intentionally performs prohibited activities on the Shabbat, he is punished by the earthly court by stoning, and this one's intentional sin is by karet - if one intentionally performs work on Yom Kippur he is liable to karet, i.e., he is punished by Heaven (see Lev. 23:30). If, however, they warned him and they gave him lashes, he is exempt from karet (Mak. 3:15).

MEGILLAH: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 6

There is no difference between one who was forbidden by his fellow to derive any benefit and one who was forbidden by his fellow to derive benefit of food from him except for the benefit of crossing and vessels in which a man's food is not made. There is no difference between vow offerings and freewill offerings except that regarding vow offerings he is liable for their surety, and regarding freewill offerings he is not liable for their surety.

Kehati

There is no difference between one who was forbidden by his fellow to derive any benefit - if A was prohibited by B through a vow from deriving any benefit from B, and one who was prohibited by his fellow to derive benefit of food - if A was prohibited by B through a vow from deriving benefit from B's food, except for the benefit of crossing - in his fellow's courtyard, for A, who is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from B, is also prohibited from entering his domain, while A who is prohibited to derive pleasure from B's food is permitted to enter his domain, and - his fellow's -

Vessels in which a man's food is not made - which are not used for the purpose of food. One who is prohibited by vow from deriving any benefit from his fellow is prohibited from borrowing from him such vessels, while one who is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit of food is permitted to borrow them. In a place, however, where it is the practice to hire out such vessels, even one who is prohibited from his fellow's food may not borrow them, for he derives benefit from the rental fee for the vessels that his fellow waived for him, and he could purchase food with this money, and any benefit that leads to food is regarded as the benefit of food (Ned. 4:1; Bartenura).

There is no difference between vow offerings and freewill offerings - If one says, "Behold, an olah sacrifice is upon men," or "Behold, a shelamim is upon me," this is a vow; but if he says, "Behold, this beast is an olah or a shelamim," this is a freewill offering; except that regarding vow offerings he is liable for their surety - if the declarer of the vow set aside his offering, and it was lost or stolen, he is obligated to bring another, and regarding freewill offerings he is not liable for their surety - if the designated animal died or was stolen, he is not obligated to bring another in its stead. Regarding, however, the prohibition of "do not be tardy," vows and freewill offerings are equivalent, as it is written, "When you shall take a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not be tardy to pay it…That which is gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according as you have vowed to the Lord your God freely, even that which you have promised with your mouth" (Deut. 23:22-24) - the Torah speaks here of both a vow and a freewill offering (Rambam, Bartenura).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives