When it is very cold in Chicago, the trains do not run as efficiently. Switches and doors freezing are distressingly not infrequent occurrences; leading to longer commute times. Since I don't commute by bicycle when I would have to ride home in the dark, I am therefore affected by those winter slow ups. Since I use the time on the train to learn, I see those slow ups as just one more benefit of commuting by train during the winter. I really appreciated the cold and delays one day when I had one of those extra long Biur Halacha's to learn; siman 302, syef 1, d.h. עלה.
The siman is all about when and in what manner one is permitted to remove shmutz -- dust, water, hanging threads, etc -- from a garment on Shabbos. The reason for the prohibition ranges from עובדין דחול/weekday/mundane activities (which is a Rabbinic prohibition) to מכה בפטיש/finishing touches and כיבוס/laundering (both Torah prohibitions). Obviously with the stakes so high, it is important get this right; especially since it is relatively easy to avoid any real problems.
The difficulty is the Chazal upon which this halacha is based says that this prohibition applies to new, dark garments; and then it throws in one condition regarding the owner: מקפיד/meticulous which is connected to the other two conditions (dark and new) with a conjunctive letter. I am not being unreasonably coy here just to be annoying (that's just a side benefit); that entire, long Biur Halacha is almost entirely about clarifying what the conjunctive letter is.
The two possibilities are: ד (daled), meaning "which"; ו (vav), meaning "and". If Chazal meant דמקפיד, then we read, "a new, dark garment; why? because we can reasonably assume that people are meticulous about those being clean." If, on the other hand Chazal meant ומקפיד, then we read, "a new, dark garment which the owner is meticulous to keep clean." The first reading, then, means that we are prohibited from shaking dust off any garment about which a person is as meticulous about as most people are about new, dark garments. If, on the other hand, we go with the second reading, then the prohibition of shaking off shmutz applies only if the garment is new, dark, and the owner is meticulous to keep clean.
Why is the Biur Halacha so long? Because ד and ו can look a lot alike in manuscripts. Moreover, many of our sources date back to before the printing press. That means that the existing manuscripts have often been through the hands of one, two, or more copyists. How can we possibly know the intent of Chazal? The Biur Halacha documents the R' Yisrael Meir Kagan's exploration and comparison of how the halacha was applied by many sources. From that analysis he is able to infer what the original text must have been. It is actually quite beautiful in it's details. It is not easy, nor is it a quick read. That is, I found myself having to stop every few lines to contemplate the data and R' Kagan's incisive analysis. (The conclusion, though, as recorded in the main text of the Mishna Brura, is that it is proper to read דמקפיד and take "new and dark" as an example of the kinds of garments about which people are meticulous.)
I won't try to summarize that analysis here, nor will I even try summarize the halachic ramifications. The level of meticulousness (would it prevent one from wearing it, or does he just prefer it clean, or did he just knock of the dirt without thinking) required depends on the reason for the prohibition (laundering, completing, weekday/mundane activity); there are a lot of details.
What one should realize very well, though, is that R' Yisrael Meir Kagan, zta"l, took this same kind of care with every halacha in the Mishna Brura. Which, of course, is what makes the Mishna Brura the gold standard of normative halachic practice today.
The siman is all about when and in what manner one is permitted to remove shmutz -- dust, water, hanging threads, etc -- from a garment on Shabbos. The reason for the prohibition ranges from עובדין דחול/weekday/mundane activities (which is a Rabbinic prohibition) to מכה בפטיש/finishing touches and כיבוס/laundering (both Torah prohibitions). Obviously with the stakes so high, it is important get this right; especially since it is relatively easy to avoid any real problems.
The difficulty is the Chazal upon which this halacha is based says that this prohibition applies to new, dark garments; and then it throws in one condition regarding the owner: מקפיד/meticulous which is connected to the other two conditions (dark and new) with a conjunctive letter. I am not being unreasonably coy here just to be annoying (that's just a side benefit); that entire, long Biur Halacha is almost entirely about clarifying what the conjunctive letter is.
The two possibilities are: ד (daled), meaning "which"; ו (vav), meaning "and". If Chazal meant דמקפיד, then we read, "a new, dark garment; why? because we can reasonably assume that people are meticulous about those being clean." If, on the other hand Chazal meant ומקפיד, then we read, "a new, dark garment which the owner is meticulous to keep clean." The first reading, then, means that we are prohibited from shaking dust off any garment about which a person is as meticulous about as most people are about new, dark garments. If, on the other hand, we go with the second reading, then the prohibition of shaking off shmutz applies only if the garment is new, dark, and the owner is meticulous to keep clean.
Why is the Biur Halacha so long? Because ד and ו can look a lot alike in manuscripts. Moreover, many of our sources date back to before the printing press. That means that the existing manuscripts have often been through the hands of one, two, or more copyists. How can we possibly know the intent of Chazal? The Biur Halacha documents the R' Yisrael Meir Kagan's exploration and comparison of how the halacha was applied by many sources. From that analysis he is able to infer what the original text must have been. It is actually quite beautiful in it's details. It is not easy, nor is it a quick read. That is, I found myself having to stop every few lines to contemplate the data and R' Kagan's incisive analysis. (The conclusion, though, as recorded in the main text of the Mishna Brura, is that it is proper to read דמקפיד and take "new and dark" as an example of the kinds of garments about which people are meticulous.)
I won't try to summarize that analysis here, nor will I even try summarize the halachic ramifications. The level of meticulousness (would it prevent one from wearing it, or does he just prefer it clean, or did he just knock of the dirt without thinking) required depends on the reason for the prohibition (laundering, completing, weekday/mundane activity); there are a lot of details.
What one should realize very well, though, is that R' Yisrael Meir Kagan, zta"l, took this same kind of care with every halacha in the Mishna Brura. Which, of course, is what makes the Mishna Brura the gold standard of normative halachic practice today.
Comments