MISHNAH ONE: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּעַרְבֵי פְסָחִים עַד חֲצוֹת, עוֹשִׂין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֵין עוֹשִׂין. הַהוֹלֵךְ מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין, אוֹ מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין לִמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין, נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חֻמְרֵי מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא מִשָּׁם וְחֻמְרֵי מָקוֹם שֶׁהָלַךְ לְשָׁם. וְאַל יְשַׁנֶּה אָדָם, מִפְּנֵי הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת: Where it is customary to work until noon on the day before Passover people may work; where it is not customary to do so people may not. When someone goes from a place where they do work to a place where they do not (or from a place where they do not to a place where they do) we apply the more severe restrictions of both the place where he comes from and the place he is going to. However, a person should not act differently [from others] because of arguments. EXPLANATIONS: 1: When we started our study of this tractate I mentioned that it seems to modern scholarship that the Written Torah refers to two festivals: the festival of the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread - the festival of the Passover being on the day that the paschal lamb was slaughtered, Nisan 14th, and the festival of Unleavened bread was celebrated during the seven days that start on Nisan 15th. I also mentioned that this had echoes in Jewish tradition which persisted until the destruction of the Bet Mikdash (and possibly even after that). This is the subject of our present mishnah. 2: I also mentioned at the very start of our study that Tractate Pesaĥim seems to be arranged chronologically: firstly we learned about the search for ĥametz which takes place on the night which follows Nisan 13th; then we learned about the elimination of ĥametz which takes place before noon on Nisan 14th. The next item on the agenda should obviously be the slaughter of the paschal lambs which took place from noon onwards during the afternoon of Nisan 14th. However, chapter four interpolates here a discussion about the halakhic standing of Nisan 14th, before continuing its chronological treatment of its subject. DISCUSSION: Earlier on we noted that travellers who had passed Mount Scopus were not required to return to Jerusalem for a certain ritual purpose. Jim Feldman writes: This is a most curious piece of geographic discrimination. Are the guys who live south or west of Jerusalem on the wrong side of the (wagon) tracks? If one takes the sages at their words, the poor slob who lives in Beersheva would have to hoof it all the way back to Jerusalem if he found that forgotten lamb chop in his tarmil after he had returned home, while the guy from Modiin or even Ramallah could whip out his zippo lighter and burn it on the spot. Admittedly, lots of this was written up in the Galilee, but as specified, it would pay most of us to walk north before we walked in any other direction. After sending you my comment about geographic discrimination, I was suddenly struck by the fact that by the time the Mishnah was composed, there was no sacrificial cult. I realize that these guys did plan for a future with a Beit Mikdash with all the trimmings, in which case, if that is what they are talking about, then they are simply planning for geographic discrimination, not committing it. Since we have had many more centuries without the sacrificial cult than with it, do modern orthodox students of the Mishnah take seriously the implication for the restoration of animal sacrifice? I respond: In many places, some of which have been part of our own texts on RMSG, we see that Jerusalem was almost invariably approached from the east. People coming from the Galilee would not travel down the coastal road (via maris) but would travel down the rift of the Jordan River as far as Jericho and then make the short trip westward to approach Jerusalem on its eastern flank. This approach, although it was through wasteland was a much easier route than the steep mountainous approach to Jerusalem from the west. Similarly, people coming from the south - Hebron, Bet Tzur, Bethlehem - would travel north as far as Jericho and then join the others coming from the north for the short hop westwards. Thus, on all festive occasions pilgrims would assemble around Jericho and make the last leg of their journey in organised groups which contained people from all over the country. I assume that this was not the case regarding people who lived to the west of Jerusalem, but their numbers were comparatively small. The arrangement to which Jim objects took into account the travel habits of some 90% of the population. Possibly there was a similar landmark on the western route which has not come down to us. As far as Jim's second comment is concerned. While it is true that the Mishnah was not edited and published until the start of the 3rd century CE - about 150 years after the destruction of the Bet Mikdash - we have noted not a few times that many of the individual mishnayot that it comprises are much older. I think it is well-known that modern orthodoxy regularly prays for the restoration of the rituals of animal sacrifice. There are also a small number of Conservative Jews who do so as well, though the overwhelming majority of Conservative Jews do not. EXPLANATIONS (continued): 3: Obviously, there were different customs in different places concerning the way to observe Nisan 14th. In some places it was still observed as a semi-sacred day on which secular work was not done. In other places secular work was the custom for part of the day. The purpose of our mishnah is to prevent squabbling. Where it is the custom not to perform mundane tasks on Nisan 14th the individual may not exercise personal judgement: fir example, if all shops are closed on the morning of Nisan 14th you may not decide to open yours. But the same also applies in reverse: you may not refrain from opening your shop in a place where everyone else is doing so. 4: The Seifa of our mishnah alters the judgement of the Reisha slightly. When a person goes from one place of residence to another he must observe the more stringent of the customs. But if this observance will be the cause of squabbling and discord he must observe the customs of his present place of residence. DISCUSSION: Albert Ringer sends information on two items that have been the subject of discussion recently: Water that comes directly from a well might contain too much carbon dioxide in solution, just like a bottle of mineral water or Coca Cola. When one uses it to make bread it can have an effect that looks like leavening, just like baking powder. The point of letting the water stand overnight, I suppose, is letting out the carbon dioxide, and not cooling it down. Sourdough is what you will end up with, if you don't put yeast in your dough. A mixture of spores, some of which will create lactic acid that gives the sour taste to the bread, will do the leavening. Yeast does not contain that kind of spores; bread made with yeast does not taste sour. A traditional baker refines and standardizes his or her sourdough by setting aside part of the dough, containing spores, and mixing it in the dough the next day as a starter. The bread will then be more or less the same every day. If one does not use the starter, there is no way of knowing how the bread will taste. In a recent response I wrote: I think it is well-known that modern orthodoxy regularly prays for the restoration of the rituals of animal sacrifice. There are also a small number of Conservative Jews who do so as well, though the overwhelming majority of Conservative Jews do not. Mike Mantel writes: The majority of American Conservative Jews do pray for the restoration of sacrifices by davening musaf, Correct?? I don't. But then I dont say alenu because I dont want to pray for destruction of any other people, but I think I am in a minority of almost one here. I respond: The traditional Conservative wording of the relevant passages in the Musaf Amidah does not pray for the restoration of animal sacrifice, but instead refers to the system in historical terms. This yields a meaning something like 'once our ancestors worshipped in this way'. In the siddur, Va'ani Tefillati, which I edited a few years ago for the Masorti Kehillot in Israel I took a different tack. First of all, I think that Musaf is prayer, which means asking for something, not just recalling the past. Secondly, I think that even among the overwhelming majority of Conservative/Masorti Jews who are appalled at the very idea of the restoration of animal sacrifice (and certainly could not pray for it) there is a yearning for the central shrine that the Bet Mikdash represents. Basing oneself on something that Rambam wrote in his Guide for the Perplexed [Part 3, Chapter 32] one can see the sacrificial system as a necessary stage in the development of Jewish worship - but only a stage. Just as animal sacrifice yielded pride of place to worship by prayer, so - at some time in the future - prayer will yield pride of place to some other form of worship. We can pray that the Bet Mikdash will be rebuilt at that time for that purpose. I do not know of any place in Aleinu that prays for the destruction of another people. MISHNAH TWO: כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, הַמּוֹלִיךְ פֵּרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁכָּלוּ לִמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא כָלוּ, אוֹ מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא כָלוּ לִמְקוֹם שֶׁכָּלוּ, חַיָּב לְבָעֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, צֵא וְהָבֵא לָךְ אַף אָתָּה: Similarly, if someone is transporting sabbatical produce from a place where they have ceased to a place where they have not yet ceased, or from a place where they have not yet ceased to a place where they have already ceased - he must eliminate them. Rabbi Yehudah says [that he can say] Go and collect some yourself. EXPLANATIONS: 1: We have noted on many occasions - including during our study of this Tractate so far - that it sometimes happens that the Mishnah brings material that is not at all associated with the general subject of the tractate. It could be that a phrase which is common to several mishnayot cause them to be quoted one after the other even though only the first may be relevant to the tractate. (We saw an example of this in the last chapter of tractate Yadayyim where a series of mishnayot were quoted which were all associated with decisions taken 'on that day' that Rabban Gamli'el was deposed from the presidency.) Or it could be that a situation is similar, which is the case with mishnayot 2 - 5 of our present chapter. 2: In mishnah 1 we saw that a certain rule applies concerning working on Nisan 14th, and the rule depends on the rule prevailing in the place where one is. The very first word of our present mishnah indicates its logical connection with the preceding mishnah. In other words, mishnah 2 also is concerned with a rule that will apply in different places depending on the situation prevailing in that place. 3: Every seventh year of a seven-year cycle is a sabbatical year in Eretz-Israel. In that year agricultural activity is brought almost to a standstill and the ground must be left [shemittah] unworked. However, the Torah [Leviticus 25:6-7] does permit one to eat what is to be found in the fields and orchards that is left over from the previous year - in other words, that was already in the ground before Rosh ha-Shanah when the Shemittah year began. Furthermore, it was permissible to collect such produce and store it. However, once each item was no longer available in the fields and orchards the storing of that item had to cease and be eliminated. 4: Even in a country as small as Eretz-Israel various kinds of produce appear and disappear in the fields at different times depending on the geographical location. (When it is freezing cold in Jerusalem there can still be balmy weather in the Jordan Valley, for example.) Our mishnah states that if one transports agricultural produce from one such area to another during the Shemittah year it can only be kept in storage as long as that particular produce is available in the fields - either in the place where one has come from or in the place one has moved to, whichever is the earlier. For example, if I move from Jericho to Jerusalem I will find that my store of apples must be eliminated even though apples are still available on the trees in Jericho. 5: In explaining the Seifa of our mishnah I am giving preference to a reading of the text which is not found in many editions but which is clearly to be preferred. Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai disagrees with Tanna Kamma. His view is that one should be permitted to maintain one's store of produce as long as that produce is available somewhere in the country. If someone were to complain that I am storing produce that is no longer available in Jerusalem I can tell him to go to Jericho where he can obtain the produce himself. Halakhah, of course, follows Tanna Kamma and not Rabbi Yehudah. DISCUSSION As I expected, our discussion concerning Alenu has not ceased. Paul Jacobson writes: From what I understand the praying of aleinu is also not for the destruction of others ... there is a sephardic custom to add an additional line before va'anachnu kor'im expressing that others may pray to a G-d that will not save them ... but even the al kayn nk'aveh paragraph does not pray for the destruction of others... I respond: There are some inaccuracies here. The additional line to which Paul refers is part of the original text: it was not added by Sefaradi custom, but deleted by Ashkenazi custom. When we discussed the Musaf Amidah of Rosh ha-Shanah I offered the following translation of Alenu. I hope that it will become apparent from this translation that the prayer nowhere calls for the destruction of other peoples. It is our duty to praise the Master of All, to ascribe greatness to the Architect of Creation, who did not make us like the various other nations and did not set us like the other families of the world; who did not make our lot like theirs or our fate like that of all their millions. For they worship something that is nothing and pray to a deity that cannot save, but we kneel and worship and confess the supreme King of all kings, the Holy One, praised be He. It is He that stretched out the heavens and founded the earth, whose glorious throne is in the heavens above and whose powerful essence is in the highest heights. It is He that is our God and no other. In truth He is our King; there is none besides Him - as is written in his Torah: 'You must understand this day and become convinced that God is the Deity in the heavens above and on earth beneath and there is no other'. That is why we hope, Dear God, that we shall speedily witness Your glorious might, when idolatry shall be removed from this world and idols completely obliterated; when the world will become perfected as the Kingdom of the Almighty and all humankind will call upon Your name; when all the wicked of the earth will turn towards You. All people dwelling on earth will recognize and know that to You shall every knee kneel, every tongue swear allegiance. May they kneel and prostrate themselves before You, Dear God, and honour Your glorious Name. May they all accept the yoke of Your sovereignty, for then You will reign over them eternally. For the sovereignty is Yours and in glory You will reign eternally, as is written in Your Torah: 'God reigns for evermore'. The phrase that Ashkenazi custom deletes is 'For they worship something that is nothing and pray to a deity that cannot save.' This phrase was thought to refer to Christianity; actually it refers to idolatry and it is almost certain that the author, Rabbi Abba ben-Aivo [3rd century CE in Babylon], knew next to nothing about Christianity. On August 28th 1703 the Prussian government issued an edict prohibiting the Jews from including this phrase in the prayer and police were stationed in the synagogues to enforce the edict. This is the origin of the Ashkenazi custom to omit the phrase. MISHNAH THREE: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְכּוֹר בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה לַגּוֹיִם, מוֹכְרִין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְכּוֹר, אֵין מוֹכְרִין. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה, עֲגָלִים וּסְיָחִים שְׁלֵמִים וּשְׁבוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בַּשְּׁבוּרָה. בֶּן בְּתֵירָה מַתִּיר בַּסּוּס: Where it is accepted practice to sell flock animals to non-Jews one may do so, but where this is not accepted practice one may not do so. In no place may one sell them herd animals, calves or donkeys, be they physically sound or injured. Rabbi Yehudah permits [the sale of] an injured animal; ben-Beteyrah permits [the sale of] a horse. EXPLANATIONS: 1: Our present mishnah, too, is concerned with rules and regulations that may have a different application in different places (and, as explained in the previous mishnah, this has nothing to do with Pesaĥ in particular). 2: Rabbinic tradition distinguishes mainly between two kinds of domestic animal: what is termed in Hebrew behemah dakkah and what is termed behemah gassah. The former term means literally 'small animals' and the latter 'large animals', but the terms are not really general, but more restricted in their application: the former refers to animals of the flock - sheep, goats etc - while the latter refers to animals of the herd - cows, bulls, oxen etc. 3: Our mishnah is concerned with the sale of animals to a non-Jew. Although it is not stated expressly in our mishnah, the reason for the hesitation in selling animals to non-Jews is both religious and humanitarian - and for exactly the same reason. One verse in the Torah is known to and quoted by almost everyone in some context or another, but few think about its implications as the sages did. In connection with Shabbat observance the Torah states [Deuteronomy 5:12-14]: שָׁמוֹר אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ: שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד וְעָשִׂיתָ כָּל־מְלַאכְתֶּךָ: וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת לַ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא־תַעֲשֶׂה כָל־מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבִנְךָֽ־וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָֽ־וַאֲמָתֶךָ וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹֽרְךָ וְכָל־בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַֽאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ: Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox or your ass, or any of your cattle, or the stranger in your settlements... And again [Exodus 23:12]: שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂיךָ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן־אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר: Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor, in order that your ox and your ass may rest, and that your bondman and the stranger may be refreshed. According to this law not only human beings (of whatever social status) have a right (and duty) to their weekly sabbath rest, but also 'your ox or your ass or any of your cattle'. The Torah requires me to see to it that all my domesticated animals are free from labour on Shabbat. The sages were concerned that if one sells an animal to a non-Jew the animal will be forced to work on Shabbat. They were well aware that one is only responsible for the weekly rest of the animals as long as they are in one's charge; but the sages were wont to make binding decrees with a blanket application because of their concern for certain special circumstances that might reasonably be expected to arise. 4: The sale of flock animals to non-Jews was never prohibited since such animals are never put to work. However, there were places, nevertheless, where it was not customary to make such a sale for fear that people might unthinkingly also sell herd animals to a non-Jew, which is prohibited everywhere. Therefore the Reisha of our mishnah states that one must abide by what is accepted in this matter by local custom: if it is acceptable to sell a non-Jew sheep or goats one is at liberty to do so; otherwise one may not do so despite one's own personal predilections. 5: The sale to a non-Jew of herd animals, which can be used for labour, is generally prohibited because in many cases the sale is conditional: if the buyer likes what he gets he keeps it, if he doesn't he can return the animal after a few days' trial and get his money back. In the meantime it is possible that an animal over which a Jew still has proprietary rights is being worked on Shabbat. Another qualm of the sages was that people cannot be expected to distinguish between a sale, which transfers ownership on a permanent basis, and lending, leasing or hiring an animal to a non-Jew, and in such cases the ownership is still that of the Jew. 6: Rabbi Yehudah ben-Ilai would permit the sale of an injured animal to a non-Jew since it is obvious that it would not be denied its shabbat rest; rather it would be denied its life, the purchase obviously being for the purpose of slaughter and resale. Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah permits the sale of a horse, because he is of the opinion that riding a horse is not putting it to work. 7: The Shulĥan Arukh [Yoreh De'ah 151:4] states that none of these rules and regulations are nowadays seen as being applicable. DISCUSSION: In a message about Alenu (which will have to wait for another time) Michael Mantel wrote incidentally: I make it a rule not to argue with my teachers, who are much more knowlegeable than me. I respond: I do hope that you will reconsider. When learning (at least the Jewish way) teachers learn with their students, and by the question and answer mechanism the full truth can become apparent. That is why Hillel says [Avot 2:5] that the shy person does not learn and the quick-tempered person does not teach. And in Ta'anit 7a Rabbi Chanina says, I have learned much from my teachers and more from my colleagues; but most of all I have learned from my students. These are among the reasons why our EXPLANATIONS are followed by DISCUSSION. MISHNAH FOUR: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לֶאֱכוֹל צָלִי בְּלֵילֵי פְסָחִים, אוֹכְלִין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכוֹל, אֵין אוֹכְלִין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַדְלִיק אֶת הַנֵּר בְּלֵילֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, מַדְלִיקִין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַדְלִיק, אֵין מַדְלִיקִין. וּמַדְלִיקִין בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, וּבִמְבוֹאוֹת הָאֲפֵלִים, וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַחוֹלִים: Where it is accepted practice to eat roast meat on the night of Pesaĥ one may do so, but where this is not accepted practice one may not do so. Where it is accepted practice to light candles on the night of Yom Kippur one may do so, but where this is not accepted practice one may not do so. But candles are lit in synagogues, Study Places, dark alleys and near those who are ill. EXPLANATIONS: 1: In some places outside Jerusalem it was customary not to eat roast meat at the Seder service. This was so as not to seem as if they were eating that paschal lamb, which could only be eaten at a Seder in Jerusalem after it had been slaughtered in the Bet Mikdash. In other places they did not think that it was very likely that anyone would think that the roast meat they were eating was a paschal lamb that he been brought from Jerusalem, so they made no objection to people eating roast meat at their Seder service. Our mishnah states that one must follow the custom of the place where one is celebrating the Seder. 2: Rambam [Ĥametz u-Matzah 8:11] quotes our mishnah almost word for word: Where it is accepted practice to eat roast meat on the night of Pesaĥ one may do so, but where this is not accepted practice one may not do so and this is a decree of the sages so that people should not think that it is paschal lamb [that they are eating]. However, everywhere it is forbidden to eat roast lamb [at the Seder service]. This halakhah is quoted verbatim by the Shulchan Arukh [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 476:1]. The Tur [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 476] is more circumspect. He says that one may not eat a lamb that has been roasted whole over a spit. He points out that the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesaĥim 28a] prohibits the eating at the Seder service of anything that requires ritual slaughter - even fowl! Since this is not echoed in the Babylonian Talmud it is not accepted halakhah. Today, one should avoid eating roast lamb at the Seder service. DISCUSSION: I have held over many messages concerning Alenu. I bring them here. You will recall that the discussion was started by Michael Mantel mentioning that he does not recite Alenu because he cannot bring himself to pray for the destruction of other people. I responded that I do not know where in Alenu one prays for the destruction of other people. Benjamin Fleischer writes: The whole second paragraph of the aleinu, al ken neqave is about the destruction of idol worship to be replaced by unified worship of YHWH. 'Therefore we hope to YHWH our God to see quickly in the glory of your might, to pass out the idols from the land and the minor deities will be utterly cut off.' He might be referring to the omitted portion in the first paragraph that other peoples pray to vapors and nothingness which is somewhat chauvanistic. Michael Mantel writes again: I take no possition as scholar, intellectual, or teacher. However What right do I even have to pray that God will detroy someone elses idols? As long as someone observes the Noahide laws why do I care what they pray to? As long as their behavior is correct their prayers and thoughts are their business. Rabbi Arthur Green teaches that we all have revelation and it is just through a different prism that we all view it. I understand the brilliant rabbinic construction the service, taking us through individual, and communal religious responsibilies.(Larry Hoffmans books on prayer) Retranslating a prayer is changing the original voice, which is what I object to. That voice may have been valid when there was oppression all around us. That is not the case now. I respond: Alenu does not pray for the destruction of idols, it prays for the end of idol worship, for the time when all mankind will recognize the sovereignty of God alone. One of the Noahide laws is the prevention of idolatry! I certainly agree with Michael that 'all translations are interpretations', and that is very unfortunate. That is why I believe that everyone should make an effort to pray in Hebrew. Having said all that, Alenu is a comparative latecomer to the daily service (approximately 13th century) and it is not part of the halakhically required ritual, so if someone wants to omit it that is acceptable. Albert Ringer writes: I find your version of the Alenu-history somewhat falling short of your general critical approach. Elbogen (in the original German version) cites the story that you re-tell and which originally comes from an article by Geiger on the history of the Jewish community of Berlin. The edict of 1703 states that the Alenu should be said loud, by the chazzan. The sentence that was supposed to be targeted against Christianity should be left out, nobody was supposed to spit or to jump away. Now, as you know, the Jews in Berlin thought themselves as being in the center of the world, and maybe rightly so, during the second halve of the 19th century. However, at the start of the 18th, a change in ritual in Germany under pressure of the Prussian government would not have much impact elsewhere. The tradition that the Alenu has something to do with Christianity is much older. Obviously the Alenu is rather old, maybe even older than Christianity. However the Arugat haBosem, a 13th century commentary quotes a tradition that says that the numerical value of Hevel werik is the same as Jeshu we Mohamed. The second part of the edict refers to a custom that seems to be that when the Alenu was read at the end of the service, those in the synagogue would spit on the ground. The Encyclopedia Judaica quotes the saying er kummt zum oysspayen, 'he comes at the spitting' for somebody who comes rather late to the service. The tradition that the Alenu is not just a neutral prayer that primarily gives thanks for the special role the Holy one gave to his people is quite strong and still alive. As the Mike Mantels original question shows us, the erasure of the original text of the Alenu might be just as much the result of self-censure as of censure from the side of anti-semites. Pointless derision of their non-Jewish neighbors and spitting in synagogue would after all be just as offensive to most 19th century European Jews as it would be to us. EXPLANATIONS (continued): 3: The lighting of candles on Shabbat and YomTov is probably one of the most beloved of the mitzvot. It invokes images of a pious woman shading her eyes from the glow of the candles in order to recite a blessing. In many cases that blessing was preceded by a prayer for the welfare of her household. To many people such an image - maybe such a memory - is the quintessence of the peace and joy that Shabbat brings. And yet, this mitzvah is not even hinted at in the Torah. It is one of the seven mitzvot that the sages introduced on their own initiative. (Actually, there are two mitzvot here, since the lighting of candles on Shabbat and on YomTov are treated separately.) 4: In introducing this rule Rambam has to resort to verbal acrobatics in order to obfuscate, to a certain extent, its ambiguous nature. He writes [Hilkhot Shabbat 5:1] - The lighting of the shabbat lamp is not a voluntary act - that one may light it if one chooses or not do so if one does not wish to - but neither is it a commandment, for one is not required not to desist until one has fulfilled it (like the Eruv or washing one's hands before eating); it is, rather, a duty. Both men and women must have a lamp burning in their home on Shabbat; even if one does not have the wherewithal to eat one must beg from door to door to obtain oil to light the lamp. For this is part of Shabbat joy [oneg shabbat]. One must recite a blessing before lighting the lamp ... just as one recites a blessing on all the duties one must perform that were instituted by the sages. Rambam continues [5:3] - The person doing the lighting must do so while it is still day, before the sun sets. Women are more commanded than men in this matter since they are at home engaged in housework... Let us ignore for the moment the problematic attitude to the role of the Jewish woman here, since it is not relevant to our present discussion. What the statement does imply is that the lighting of the lamp is connected with preparing the home for Shabbat. When we couple this with the previous statement that the Shabbat lamp is part of the concept of Oneg Shabbat we begin to understand that the reason why we are required to have a lamp burning in our home on Shabbat is so that we will not have to spend the evening in darkness. The sages wanted Shabbat to be a day of joy, relaxation, inner peace. That is why they deliberately used the tool of hermeneutic interpretation to obviate the express demand of the Torah [Exodus 35:3] that לֹא־תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֽשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת: You may not ignite any fire in all your dwellings on the Sabbath day. The Karaites understood this requirement literally and their Shabbat was devoid of light and warmth. (One wonders what a Karaite Shabbat was like in the depth of a Crimean winter.) The rabbanite sages re-interpreted the verse as precluding creating fire, but not precluding the enjoyment of the light and heat of an already existent fire. DISCUSSION: Saul Davis writes concerning the last clause of the first mishnah of this chapter: a person should not act differently [from others] because of arguments. What does this mean? If I am temporarily in a community where a different custom is practiced from my usual one what should I do? Nowadays we generally do not have homogeneous communities with one tradition, eg Beer-Sheva, where I live, is full of Sefardim, Ashqenazim, Conservative and Orthodox each with many sub-traditions of their own. Does this rule has have any value today? I respond: Saul has raised a great problem for modern Israel here. Strictly speaking, of course, the custom prevalent in Eretz-Israel throughout the Middle Ages was that of the oriental communities. Therefore, the people who came to Israel in the 'First Aliyyah' in the 19th century should have left behind their Ashkenazi customs and traditions and blended in with the Sefaradi traditions that they found in use in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias. But they didn't. (This seems to have been a pattern: the original returnees to England in 17th century were Sefaradim from Holland, but the great wave of Ashkenazi immigration into England in the 19th century just ignored the fact that there was already an established custom.) Today, in Israel, the accepted rationale is that each group constitutes 'a place' and one must refrain from contravening the custom of the majority within the group. EXPLANATIONS (continued): 5: So far we have seen that the sages required a lamp to be burning in every Jewish home on the evening of Shabbat and this was considered so important to the enjoyment of Shabbat as a day of pleasantness that it was elevated to the degree of a rabbinical command (and there are only seven such commands in all). Shabbat would hardly be pleasant if one had to eat cold food without light or heat. Later on, the requirement of the sages that a lamp be burning in the home was amplified to having lamps burning in all places around the house where one might go during the hours of darkness on Shabbat. It is thus clear that the lighting of the Shabbat lamp was much more akin to our lighting of electric lights that to a religious ritual of lighting candles, as we now observe the custom. And, indeed, there are modern poskim [decisors] who decide that one can fulfill the mitzvah (including the Berakhah) of Shabbat 'candles' with the use of electric lights. (Earlier in the 20th century some poskim performed logical acrobatics to prove that one could not do so.) While I am quite aware that electric lights do not shed the same aura of religious feeling that candles do I would certainly recommend reciting the berakhah over electric lights when candles or not available or not usable. (Such lights should be left burning and not turned off.) After all, surely the pious Jewish housewife of 250 years ago who lowered the chandelier over her dining-room table before Shabbat in order to light the candles it held, hauled it up again and then recited the Berakhah - surely she must have experienced the same or a similar religious aura as moderns do? 6: The reason why the sages require our homes to be filled with light on Shabbat (and YomTov), Oneg Shabbat [Shabbat pleasure], does not apply to Yom Kippur. There is no Oneg to be experienced and there is no festive meal to be eaten. Therefore, in many places, lighting lamps in the home on Yom Kippur must have seemed a waste - of money, of fuel etc. Possibly, also, the darkness of the home upon returning from the synagogue would remind the household of the sombreness of the day. Other places did permit the lighting of candles on Yom Kippur, so that it would not be different from any other of the sacred festivals in this respect. In this matter, too, our mishnah says that one must be guided by local custom and not personal custom. 7: In those places where the lighting of lamps on Yom Kippur was not acceptable there were major exceptions: synagogues, where people gathered for public worship; Study Places [Batei Midrash], where people gathered for both worship and study; dark alleys, where people might stumble and hurt themselves; and near those who are ill and who might need attention. DISCUSSION: I mentioned that the Shulĥan Arukh says that nowadays the restrictions on trading in livestock with non-Jews is not observed. Albert Ringer writes: Can you explain why the Shulĥan Arukh states that none of these rules and regulations are nowadays seen as being applicable? I ask because around here, buying and selling of cattle used to be one of the traditional Jewish professions. I respond: Albert's reason is interesting, since the classical commentators on the Shulĥan Arukh imply that the reason the prohibition was allowed to lapse was economic: the number of Jews living in close proximity to each other who were also dealers in livestock was very limited; if trading with non-Jews was prohibited the Jews would be shooting themselves in the foot. On the same subject, Ze'ev Orzech writes: You mention as 'animals of the herd' cows, bulls and oxen. I was under the impression that castration of animals (as well as of humans, of course) was forbidden. Isn't an ox a castrated bull"? I respond: Put it down to crass ignorance on my part. Animal husbandry was not a part of my education, unfortunately. And on a similar note. I gave an example of the availability of apples in Jericho and in Jerusalem. Joshua Peri writes: The use of apples available in Jericho jarred my sensibility to reality in teaching. Apples grow in Jersusalem, Tsfat and other mountain areas. They fare poorly on the coastal plain of Israel and worse in Jericho. A better example would be grapes, which would be available in Jerusalem and Hebron long after they were no longer available in Jericho. Changing the word from apples to dates (which grow well in Jericho and poorly in Jerusalem) should make the statement true. I respond: Again, I can only plead crass ignorance. My knowledge of horticulture seems to be as shaky as my knowledge of animal husbandry. MISHNAH FIVE: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּתִשְׁעָה בְאָב, עוֹשִׂין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה, אֵין עוֹשִׂין. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּטֵלִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בִּיהוּדָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה בְעַרְבֵי פְסָחִים עַד חֲצוֹת, וּבַגָּלִיל לֹא הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין כָּל עִקָּר. הַלַּיְלָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹסְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין עַד הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה: Where it is accepted practice to work on Tish'ah b-Av one may do so, but where this is not accepted practice one may not do so. Students of the sages refrain from work in all places. Rabban Shim'on ben- Gamli'el says that a person should always act as if he were a student of the sages. The sages say that in Judah they would work on the day before Pesaĥ until noon whereas in the Galilee they did not work at all. As far as the [previous] night is concerned: Bet Shammai prohibit whereas Bet Hillel permit until sunrise. EXPLANATIONS: 1: Tish'ah b-Av, the 9th day of the month of Av, is observed as the anniversary of the destruction of both Temples, the first in 587 BCE and the second in 70 CE. This is a day spent as a 25-hour fast (just like Yom Kippur), but it is not a festival and therefore the biblical restrictions on work being done on festivals do not apply. Tanna Kamma in our mishnah states that whether or not one could permit oneself to perform secular tasks on Tish'ah b-Av is not a matter for personal decision, but that in this matter one's conduct should always conform to prevailing local custom. In those places where secular tasks were not permitted on Tish'ah b-Av it was because of the mood prevailing on that day of national historical mourning: just as the person observing the seven days [shiv'ah] of personal mourning upon the death of a close relative is not permitted to go about his regular business, so should everyone on this day appear as if in mourning. 2: Tanna Kamma also states that a student of the sages [Talmid Chakham] should refrain from secular activity regardless of local custom - presumably because such a person should feel the acute sadness of the day as an overwhelming emotion. (The term "student of a sage" is a synonym for a fully- fledged sage, since every sage was the student of another sage, and it is thus an expression of modesty.) 3: Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el adds to the statement of Tanna Kamma the recommendation that everyone behave like the sages and demonstratively abstain from secular activity on this day. While his statement at first blush seems admirably charged with both religious and patriotic fervour, it nevertheless raises a quasi- ethical problem: to what extent can one legitimately be observed by others to be engaging in acts of supererogation (demanding of oneself more than the law explicitly requires)? Might this not be interpreted by others as the demonstration of a kind of superiority complex - if others do engage in secular activities and I am observed to be refraining from doing so? In his commentary on our mishnah Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro suggests that this need not necessarily be interpreted as an expression of superiority, since the people working could quite easily assume that the person not working simply had nothing to do! DISCUSSION: Yesterday's shiur mentioned the lighting of candles on Shabbat and YomTov. Albert Ringer writes: What is the halachic status of lighting Chanuka-candles, as compared to Shabbat-candles. We are not allowed to make use of the candles, so we don't light them as an aid to the menuha of the day, and it is certainly not a halacha based on tenach. Am I right that we say Ha neirot hallalu just to bind on us the obligation, not to use the candles for anything, as a kind of neder? I respond: The lighting of the lights on Chanukah is another of the 'seven commandments of the sages'. Chanukah is certainly not a festival instituted by the Torah (and, unlike Purim, it is not even mentioned in the bible). For this reason none of the restrictions that apply to the other festivals apply to Chanukah and all secular work is permitted: there is no religious menuchah. Since the lights are purely for the purposes of 'publicity' - publicizing the miracle [pirsumei nissa] we give them that sole purpose and may not make any other use of them. Hanerot Halalu contains a statement to that effect. Still on the subject of candles, but in the matter of using electric lights for Shabbat lamps, Art Evans writes: Our blind friend lights only electric Shabbat lights. When a Rabbi told her she should use candles, she (sensibly, in my opinion) ignored that advice. A blind person does not want open flames in her living area. On the other hand, when she is in our home Friday evening she lights one of our candles, with either my wife or me guiding her hand. I respond: I do not know why the rabbi told he what he did. It sounds strange to me. EXPLANATIONS (continued): 4: We have seen that Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el is of the opinion that even lay people should comport themselves as if they were Talmidei Chakhamim in the matter of secular activity on Tish'ah b- Av. This means that, despite the view of Tanna Kamma that doing secular work on Tish'ah b-Av is a matter of local custom, one should ignore the local custom where it is to permit such work and to abstain from mundane activity on that day. In his commentary on our mishnah Rambam states that halakhah does not follow the opinion of Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el. 5: There were two sages named Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el, both presidents of the Sanhedrin. The first lived during the existence of the Bet Mikdash: he was assassinated by political opponents during the war against the Romans in 68 CE. The second sage bearing this name was his grandson. It fell to his lot to nurse the sages and the people through the disastrous aftermath of the ill-fated Bar-Kokhba uprising. His insistence in our mishnah concerning the austere nature of Tish'ah b-Av observance probably reflects the agonies of his time. 6: The Seifa of our mishnah brings us back (temporarily!) to the main topic of our tractate: Pesaĥ. The sages clarify that what they (as Tanna Kamma) said in the Reisha applies only to Tish'ah b-Av. As far as Nisan 14th is concerned the statement of the first mishnah in the present chapter must be clearly circumscribed. The first mishnah of chapter 4 stated that where it is customary to work until noon on the day before Passover people may work; where it is not customary to do so people may not. What they are saying in our present mishnah is that the behaviour that prevails in the various places is not a matter of personal choice, but a matter of halakhic decision: in the southern part of the country (Judah) it was permitted to perform mundane tasks until noon on Nisan 14th; in the Galilee the performance of mundane tasks was prohibited through the day. 7: As regards the question of mundane work on the evening of Nisan 14th - the evening when the search for ĥametz is made - our mishnah records a machloket [difference of halakhic opinion] between the two great schools of halakhic thought, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Both opinions here reflect logical thinking. Bet Shammai, much more conservative in their general outlook on life, treat Nisan 14th as any other festival: just as on other festivals all mundane work ceases with sunset, so it should be the case with Nisan 14th. Bet Hillel, much more liberal in their general outlook on life, see Nisan 14th as a special day which is not a proper festival: just as on most fast days, for example, the fast does not begin the night before but only with first light in the morning, so should be the case with Nisan 14th. Halakhah follows Bet Hillel. DISCUSSION: The issue of the status of the ox has opened a can of beans, and several participants offer of their knowledge and wisdom. Reuven Boxman writes: The definition of ox as a castrated bull took me by surprise, so I checked the Webster dictionary, which defined ox as (1) 'the domestic bovine quadruped, especially an adult castrated male', (2) any bovine quadruped. My impression was that an ox or (bull, cow) were genetically the same, but different names were commonly applied according to their domestic use and geographic location - i.e. ox if used as a beast of burden (or for oxtail soup), (bull and cow in American East of the Mississippi River, steer and heifer in the American West) if raised for food. Putting aside the matter of definition, I would like to hear your reply re. castration of animals. I respond: The answer to Reuven's question is implied in the next item. Benjamin Fleischer writes: In Hebrew the words are ox=Showr and bull=Par. It seems that in English an ox is a castrated domesticated male cow and a bull is the same but not castrated, but the male equivalent of cows. This never occurred to me since I had always thought they were slightly different cow-like animals and had different Hebrew names. It is of course very clear from scripture that people had bunches of oxen all over the place. Sefer ha-Brit, Elijah and Elisha, the Tabernacle and Uzziah, etc. Here is a link to various ox words in the bible: Par= 1.young bull, steer, bullock Showr= 1.ox, bull, a head of cattle a.for plowing, for food, as sacrifice. According to Merriam-Webster Main Entry: ox Inflected Form(s): plural ox·en; also ox Etymology: Middle English, from Old English oxa; akin to Old High German ohso ox, Skt uksA bull, and perhaps to Sanskrit uksati he moistens, Greek hygros wet - more at HUMOR Date: before 12th century 1 : a domestic bovine mammal (Bos taurus); broadly : a bovine mammal 2 : an adult castrated male domestic ox. Main Entry: bull Etymology: Middle English bule, from Old English bula; akin to Old Norse boli bull Date: before 12th century 1 a: a male bovine; especially : an adult uncastrated male ox b: a usually adult male of various large animals (as elephants, whales, or seals) MISHNAH SIX: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁהִתְחִיל בָּהּ קֹדֶם לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, גּוֹמְרָהּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אֲבָל לֹא יַתְחִיל בָּהּ בַּתְּחִלָּה בְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְגָמְרָהּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שָׁלֹשׁ אֻמָּנִיּוֹת עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה בְעַרְבֵי פְסָחִים עַד חֲצוֹת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, הַחַיָּטִים וְהַסַּפָּרִים וְהַכּוֹבְסִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הָרַצְעָנִים: Rabbi Me'ir says that any task begun before the fourteenth may be concluded on the fourteenth, but that one should not actually begin a task on fourteenth even if it can be concluded. The [rest of the] sages say that there are three tradespeople who may practice their trade on the day before Pesaĥ until noon. They are tailors, hairdressers and launderers. Rabbi Yosé bar-Yehudah includes cobblers. EXPLANATIONS: 1: The Seifa of the previous mishnah finally returned us to the topic of our present chapter, the status of Nisan 14th, the day before Pesaĥ, from the point of view of permitting secular work. The first mishnah of this chapter stated that this was a matter of local custom. Mishnah 5 clarified this point: in the south of Eretz-Israel they did permit secular work until noon, but in the north of the country they did not. Mishnah 5 also stated that a definition of 'Nisan 14th' for these purposes was from dawn onwards (except for those who followed Bet Shammai). Our present mishnah further elaborates on this matter. 2: Rabbi Me'ir says that even in the north of the country, if a secular task was begun before the onset of Nisan 14th it may be brought to a conclusion up to noon on that day. On the other hand, even in the south of the country, although a task could be concluded by noon no one should actually begin a secular task from the onset of the day. (Noon was the time when the slaughter of the paschal lambs began in the Bet Mikdash.) The tasks referred to in these mishnayot are, of course, tasks which are connected with last-minute preparations for the festival. Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro, in his commentary on our mishnah, understands it differently: he understands Rabbi Me'ir to be making a difference between tasks which are preparations for the festival and those which are not. He says that Rabbi Me'ir permits the performance of tasks which are not in preparation for the festival only in the south of the country. 3: The rest of the sages do not disagree with Rabbi Me'ir, but they liberalize his statement in certain areas. Four tradespeople are excluded from the ban on actually starting a task on Nisan 14th. Their logic is that since these trades are permitted under certain circumstances on Chol ha-Mo'ed [the days of Pesaĥ which are not YomTov or Shabbat] they can hardly be prohibited on Nisan 14th which is of less ritual importance. On Chol ha-Mo'ed anybody was permitted to sew clothes in order to mend them, so obviously tailors should be permitted to sew on Nisan 14th in order to have garments ready for the festival. People who have just arrived from a journey overseas and people released from prison during Chol ha-Mo'ed were permitted to shave and have their hair cut so that they would not appear dishevelled during the festival; and they were also permitted to have their clothes laundered. If these tasks were permitted under these circumstances on Chol ha-Mo'ed they could hardly be prohibited on Nisan 14th, when people would also want the services of a hairdresser and a launderer in order to look nice on the festival. Rabbi Yosé bar-Yehudah says that during Chol ha-Mo'ed pilgrims whose shoes had warn out during their journey to Jerusalem could have their shoes mended. Therefore, there was no logical reason for cobblers (as opposed to sandal-makers) not to be available to the public on Nisan 14th. DISCUSSION: Several people have asked for a full list of the Seven Rabbinical Commands. We have mentioned several of them over the years, but here is the complete list. They are all ritual acts that we do which, even though they are not commanded in the Torah, we nevertheless recite a berakhah which says 'who has commanded us...' To wash the hands before eating bread(we spent a whole tractate learning this!) To light the Shabbat (and YomTov) candles (we have mentioned this just recently). To create an Eruv where necessary. To recite Hallel on festivals. To light the candles on Ĥanukah. To read the Megillah on Purim. and also to recite a berakhah before enjoying the good things of this planet [birkhot ha-nehenin] (we discussed this at length when studying tractate Berakhot. Saul Davis raised the question some time ago concerning differing customs among the various groups into which the Jewish people is divided. In my response I wrote: Strictly speaking, of course, the custom prevalent in Eretz-Israel throughout the Middle Ages was that of the oriental communities. Therefore, the people who came to Israel in the First Aliyyah in the 19th century should have left behind their Ashkenazi customs and traditions and blended in with the Sefaradi traditions that they found in use in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias. But they didn't... Today, in Israel, the accepted rationale is that each group constitutes 'a place' and one must refrain from contravening the custom of the majority within the group. Yiftah Shapir writes: The issue was really a pricky one at the end of the 19th century. Ashkenazim brought in their customs and the Sephardim objected - citing the rule we just discussed (actually there were Different Ashkenazi congregations much earlier than that - take the Hassidic community in Tiberias during the mid 18th century for example) At the beginning of the 20th - Ha-Rav Uziel (who was the Rishon Le-Tzion - chief Rabbi under the Othman rule) formally agreed to a request by Ha Rav Kook, and the custom that we now have became 'official'. This ruling by Uziel is vehemently contested today by Ha-Rav Ovadya Yossef. Much of his halachic ruling and his politics should be understood by his demand Le-hakhzir Atarah Le-Yoshna (put the crown back to its original glory) by which he refers not only to encouraging non religious people to obsereve mitzvot but mainly - to his drive to re-institute the custom of Eretz Yisrael as the only custom in Israel. For him this means - the rulings of Maran Yossef Karo to the word. He rejects not only Ashkenazi customs but also rulings by some prominent Sephardic poskim - when they are not in line with the word of Rabbi Yossef Karo (for example he disagrees, on some points, with the 'Ben Ish Hai' who is the accepted authority for most Iraqi Jews). (BTW - Yossef himself was born and raised in Iraq...) MISHNAH SEVEN: מוֹשִׁיבִין שׁוֹבָכִין לַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. וְתַרְנְגוֹלֶת שֶׁבָּרְחָה, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתָהּ לִמְקוֹמָהּ. וְאִם מֵתָה, מוֹשִׁיבִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. גּוֹרְפִין מִתַּחַת רַגְלֵי בְהֵמָה בְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּבַמּוֹעֵד מְסַלְּקִין לַצְּדָדִין. מוֹלִיכִין וּמְבִיאִין כֵּלִים מִבֵּית הָאֻמָּן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָם לְצֹרֶךְ הַמּוֹעֵד: Laying-boxes may be set up on the fourteenth, and a bird that flew off may be returned. If a bird dies it may be replaced by another. Ordure may be raked off from under the feet of animals on the fourteenth, but during Chol ha-Mo'ed it can only be raked to the side. One can take utensils to and from a craftsman even if they are not needed for the festival. EXPLANATIONS: 1: The Reisha of our mishnah is concerned with pigeons. Pigeons were raised in great numbers since they were used for several purposes. When we studied tractate Rosh ha-Shanah we noted that pigeons were bred for pigeon-racing, which also led to betting on the winner. Pigeons were also used for long- distance communication. And, of course, they were also used for food and sacrifice. Since pigeons were bred in large numbers, and since they were a rather messy lot, the sages legislated that the pigeon coops must be a certain distance from the towns and villages. 2: Pigeons would be forced to sit on eggs in order to keep them warm until hatched, and arrangements for this activity were permitted on Nisan 14th (even where secular tasks were not permitted). It is not surprising that such pigeons might well get fed up with sitting on another bird's eggs and give up: under such circumstances it was permitted to catch them and set them back to their task. Similarly, if such a bird died on Nisan 14th it was permitted to set a different bird to continue keeping the eggs warm. 3: On Nisan 14th the ordure produce by farm animals may be completely removed - presumably to a dunghill or manure dump. This is not permitted during Chol ha-Mo'ed, when the ordure may only be raked to the sides of the pen, but not be removed. 4: The Seifa of our mishnah states that on Nisan 14th it was permitted to take utensils to a craftsman for mending or to collect them from him, and this was permitted even if the utensils were not needed for the festival itself. DISCUSSION: During our study of the fourth mishnah of this chapter we referred in some detail to the lighting of the Shabbat candles. Mike Mantel writes: Unconfuse me: when I grew up we lit the lights right before dinner. In some homes I visit now the lights are already lit and are in the kitchen. Can you say kiddush after the start of shabbat? What begins shabbat: the lighting or the sun setting? And what is the difference in the kavanah for shabbat vs a ĥag. I respond: Shabbat begins some time before sunset on Friday, whether the candles have been lit or not. The exact amount of time before sunset is a matter of custom. In my explanations of an earlier tractate I wrote: style="color: black"> It is required that Shabbat begin for us some time before sunset, the amount of time before sunset being known as the 'tosefet Shabbat', the secular time 'added on' to Shabbat. The length of this additional time is the choice of the individual, and strictly speaking even one minute would suffice. However custom has made certain arbitrary choices in various places. In Jerusalem (and therefore also in Petach-Tikvah which was founded by Jerusalemites) the custom established was that Shabbat should officially begin 40 minutes before sunset. In the much more secular Tel-Aviv it was established that Shabbat would begin only 18 minutes before sunset. Many other places in Israel chose a compromise of 30 minutes. In the summer, in many places sunset is so late that it is not convenient for Shabbat to commence so late. It is permitted to commence Shabbat up to Plag ha-Minchah before sundown. On this also I have previously written as follows: According to Rabbi Yehudah the last possible time for reciting the Afternoon Amidah is at a point in time called 'Plag ha-Minchah' - approximately 75 minutes before sunset. From that moment it is permissible, he says, to recite the Evening service... For reasons that need not detain us now, Arvit on Erev Shabbat [Friday night] may be recited before dark even if Minchah has been recited after Plag ha-minchah. It remains for us now only to explain the term 'plag ha-Minchah'. We have already seen that the usual time for the second of the two daily Sacrifices in the Bet Mikdash was half an hour after the ninth hour of the day. This time is referred to for the sake of convenience as 'Minchah Ketanah' [the Little Minchah], since there rest only two and one half hours until sunset. But we also mentioned that on 14th Nisan in the Bet Mikdash this sacrifice was advanced to half an hour after noon. This time is referred to as 'Minchah Gedolah' [the Great Minchah], since there are still five and one half hours to go until sunset. The Aramaic word 'Plag' (as in 'plag ha-Minchah') means 'half'. Thus it is permissible to light the Shabbat candles from approximately 75 minutes before sundown (in the summer a rabbinic minute is longer than 60 seconds!). If one does so then Shabbat is deemed to have begun with the lighting of the candles. Thus, it is possible, that what Mike recalls from his childhood is eating on Friday night while it is still light with the candles already lit. However - and this is a very big 'however' - once the sun has set it is forbidden to light the Shabbat candles. Period. As for where the candles should be lit: they should be lit where one is going to eat. If that is in the kitchen that is where they should be lit; if the Shabbat meal will be taken in the dining room that is where the candles should be lit. And so forth. On Yom Tov, the candles may be lit at any time during the evening, and it does not have to be before sunset. Many households have the custom of lighting the candles on YomTov (if it does not fall on Shabbat!) before Kiddush. Kiddush is to be recited before the meal, which means that it is always recited after Shabbat has begun. I hope I have not confused anybody. Further questions on this topic are welcome. MISHNAH EIGHT: שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים עָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרִיחוֹ, עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִחוּ בְיָדָם, וְעַל שְׁלֹשָׁה לֹא מִחוּ בְיָדָם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁלֹּא מִחוּ בְיָדָם, מַרְכִּיבִין דְּקָלִים כָּל הַיּוֹם, וְכוֹרְכִין אֶת שְׁמַע, וְקוֹצְרִין וְגוֹדְשִׁין לִפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר, וְלֹא מִחוּ בְיָדָם. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּחוּ בְיָדָם, מַתִּירִין גַּמְזִיּוֹת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאוֹכְלִין מִתַּחַת הַנְּשָׁרִים בַּשַּׁבָּת, וְנוֹתְנִין פֵּאָה לַיָּרָק, וּמִחוּ בְיָדָם חֲכָמִים: The people of Jericho did six things; regarding three of them there were protests [from the sages] and regarding three there were not. The following are those against which they did not protest: they would graft trees the whole day, they would elide the Shema, and they would reap and stack before the Omer (and they did not protest against these). The following are those against which they did protest: they permitted the produce of [trees that had been dedicated to] the Bet Mikdash, they would eat fallen fruit on Shabbat, they would give Pe'ah from vegetables (and they did protest against these). EXPLANATIONS: 1: The connection between our present mishnah and the previous one is tenuous. There was one thing that the people of the town of Jericho would do on Nisan 14th that the sages did not approve of, and this is the first item in our mishnah. Since this has been mentioned, as is the way of the Mishnah, five other such items are mentioned and categorized even though they have no connection with our topic. 2: Jericho was famous as a town whose economy was based primarily on growing and selling dates. (Deuteronomy 34:3 even calls it 'the date city'.) Spring was the time when much grafting of date palms was done in order to enhance the quality of their produce. With an eye to their economy, the people of Jericho would continue with the task of grafting their palms even on Nisan 14th (up till noon), even though this is not an activity specifically permitted in mishnah 6. The sages did not protest this activity despite their disapproval because they knew that it was a question of livelihood. 3: It is not clear what 'eliding the Shema' means. The Gemara [Pesaĥim 56a] gives two possible explanations. One suggestion is that they did not insert 'Praised be His Sovereign Majesty's Name for evermore' after the first sentence of the Shema. The other suggestion is that they badly punctuated a sentence so that it read: 'These words which I command you, this day shall be upon your heart' - 'today and not tomorrow'. Modern scholarship has a different understanding of the term, that the Shema would be recited in such a way as the cantor would announce the first word or words of a verse and then the congregation (who did not have prayerbooks) would recite the verse - and so on to the end of the third paragraph. DISCUSSION: Several questions have already been received concerning the lighting of the Shabbat candles. Bayla Singer writes: Sunset comes quite late here in Florida (USA) during the summer, and I have seen observant people sing kiddush and have their Friday night meal before lighting the candles. Is this a matter of law or of custom (halacha or minhag)? And is it a matter for the local rabbi's decision? I respond: I do not understand the phenomenon described here. In Florida, in the height of summer, Shabbat begins before 8 pm. Plag ha-Minchah is around 6.30, and this is the earliest time for lighting the Shabbat candles and receiving Shabbat. Why cannot the people mentioned by Bayla light their candles at 6.30 and then have their Shabbat meal? If Shabbat has not begun the meal is not a Shabbat meal (and one is required to have three meals on Shabbat); if Shabbat has begun it is forbidden to light the candles. This is not a question of law versus custom. Halakhah permits us to usher in Shabbat any time between Plag ha-Minchah and a few moments before sundown. This is something that each household may decide for itself. However, it may well be that the local synagogue will decide on this matter as regards early Friday evening services, and that may affect the decision of the household. On this same matter Ze'ev Orzech writes: You write that the lighting of shabbat candles is a matter of local custom. From what you wrote some time ago about the requirements of seeing three 'small' stars for havdalah, I took it that this tosefet shabbat was a matter of halakhah. Was I mistaken? When was the mitzvah of lighting a shabbat lamp 'enacted'. Was it a tanna or an amora, and when he live? I respond: 'What has Shemittah to do with Mount Sinai?' Three small stars is a definition of 'dark' which is the time when Shabbat goes out. It has nothing to do with the beginning of Shabbat, which is defined in relationship to sundown. There is no connection between the two. In the matter of halakhah versus custom see what I wrote in response to Bayla. The mitzvah of lighting lamps in the home in honour of Shabbat was not enacted by one person but by all the sages. I am not able to give you a date, I'm afraid. It was enacted long before the time of the Tanna'im, and it's origin is lost in the mists of time. EXPLANATIONS (continued): 4: 10. In the Torah [Leviticus 23:9-14] we read that every year, on the second day of Pesaĥ, the 'Omer'-ceremony was to take place during the existence of the Bet Mikdash. A measure of cereal from the new spring crop, now ready to be harvested, was to be reaped and 'waved' by the priest. Prior to this ceremony it was not permitted to eat of the new crop, Chadash, [Leviticus 23:14]. Jericho, situated as it is in the Jordan Valley has a much warmer climate, and it seems that the barley ripened earlier there than in the rest of the country. For everyone else the Omer ceremony was the sign to commence harvesting the barley, but the people of Jericho started harvesting earlier, as soon as the crop was ready. Rambam, in his commentary on our mishnah, explains that the sages did not protest since what was forbidden by the Torah was eating of the new crop before the Omer, and all the people of Jericho were doing was harvesting it. 5: Hekdesh is the term used to designate commodities that owners have donated to the Bet Mikdash. From the moment that the donor so decided in his or her mind the commodities become the property of the Bet Mikdash and anyone eating them is guilty of sacrilegious embezzlement [me'ilah]. The people of Jericho were of the opinion that if a person designated the fruit of a tree as hekdesh they were referring only to that specific crop; the sages held that in connection with a tree hekdesh was for all fruit for all years to come. 6: Fruit that falls from trees on Shabbat is considered to be muktzeh: that is that it may not be touched during Shabbat. If, during Shabbat, one finds fruit lying at the foot of a tree, according to the sages the assumption should be that it fell during Shabbat and is muktzeh. The people of Jericho made a different assumption: if, during Shabbat, they found fruit lying at the foot of a tree the assumed that it had fallen before Shabbat began and was therefore permitted. 7: Leket ['gleanings'], Shikhechah ['the forgotten sheaf'] and Pe'ah ['the corner of the field'] are mitzvot connected with the agricultural harvests, and are all part of the 'Poor Law' of the Torah. The destitute had the right to enter a private field and follow unmolested after the harvesters in order to glean - pick up and keep for themselves all the stalks that the reapers accidentally drop. When the harvesters were loading the sheaves onto carts to transport them from the field sometimes they would forget a sheaf: they could not come back to retrieve it, but had to leave it as the rightful property of the destitute [Shikhechah]. The farmer could not reap the whole of his field, but had to leave some part of it - Pe'ah, corner - unreaped; when he left the field after the completion of the harvesting the destitute were allowed in to reap the portion left. A good impression of these laws in action can be gained from another reading of Ruth, chapters 2-3. Vegetables were eaten fresh and not stored. The sages held that anything not usually stored could not be left as Pe'ah. The reason why the sages protested is that by allowing the destitute to collect Pe'ah from vegetables the people of Jericho were 'robbing' the priests and levites (who were also dependent on charity for their sustenance) of their share through the tithing system. DISCUSSION: Shabbat candles still occupy us. Marc Auslander writes: I had always thought that the lighting of the Shabbat candles signalled the time when the restrictions of Shabbat started. I had understood that the reason we say the blessing after we light the candles, and cover our eyes, was to allow us to light the candles before Shabbat, and then experience the lighting after the blessing. I respond: The lighting of the Shabbat candles does indeed signal the time the Shabbat restrictions take effect, provided that they were lit before sundown. At sundown those restrictions (including the restriction on lighting a flame) come into effect automatically. The covering of the eyes when lighting the candles is pious custom. The reasoning is that one must perform a mitzvah immediately subsequent to reciting the berakhah associated with it. If one were to recite the berakhah over lighting the candles this would signal the onset of the Shabbat restrictions and it would be forbidden to light the candles! Therefore the candles are lit before reciting the berakhah. They eyes are shaded so as not to enjoy the light of the candles until after the berakhah. It is the light of the candles which is, after all, the 'oneg shabbat', not the candles themselves. MISHNAH NINE: שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים עָשָׂה חִזְקִיָּה הַמֶּלֶךְ, עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה הוֹדוּ לוֹ, וְעַל שְׁלֹשָׁה לֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ. גֵּרַר עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו עַל מִטָּה שֶׁל חֲבָלִים, וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ. כִּתַּת נְחַשׁ הַנְּחֹשֶׁת, וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ. גָּנַז סֵפֶר רְפוּאוֹת, וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ. עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה לֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ, קִצַּץ דְּלָתוֹת שֶׁל הֵיכָל וְשִׁגְּרָן לְמֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ. סָתַם מֵי גִיחוֹן הָעֶלְיוֹן, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ. עִבֵּר נִיסָן בְּנִיסָן, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ: King Hezekiah did six things; regarding three of them there were protests [from the sages] and regarding three there were not. He dragged his father's remains on a rope-drawn catafalque, and they did not protest; he ground down the brazen serpent and they did not protest; he hid the book of cures and they did not protest. [These are the] three things against which they did protest: he pulled down the doors of the sanctuary and sent them to the king of Assyria and they protested; he blocked off the waters of the upper Gichon and they protested; and he intercalated the month of Nisan in Nisan and they protested. EXPLANATIONS: 1: Rambam, in his commentary on the above, states that the passage does not belong to the Mishnah. It is a direct quote from the Gemara [Pesaĥim 56a] where this text is brought as a baraita. (A baraita is material from the period of the sages of the mishnah but which was not included in the Mishnah of Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin when he collated it at the beginning of the third century CE.) The inclusion of the passage in the standard versions of the Mishnah is obviously because of its stylistic affinity with the previous mishnah. 2: Hezekiah was king of Judah during the last years of the 8th century BCE and the first years of the 7th century. He is recorded in the bible as being 'a good king' who did 'that which was right in the eyes of the Lord'. Indeed, 2Kings 18:3-7 is a glowing encomium on his reign. His father, Ahaz, 'did that which was wicked in the eyes of the Lord' so Hezekiah buried him in a disrespectful manner hoping that this would be considered his father's punishment and he would merit no further punishment from heaven. The incident of the brazen serpent is mentioned in 2Kings 18:4. During the desert wandering [Numbers 21:9] Moses had created a bronze serpent which was given the name Nechushtan. This bronze serpent had been preserved, but by the time of King Hezekiah it had become an object of idolatrous veneration. King Hezekiah did not hesitate to destroy this artifact made by Moses. The book of cures - or possibly the Tablet of Cures - was a document that contained a list of remedies. Rashi says that the reason why the sages agreed that this was 'a good thing' was because those who would cure the sick just used the document as a routine, without becoming personally involved in the invalid's suffering. DISCUSSION: Here are some more of the many posts I have received concerning the lighting of the Shabbat candles. I bring them in chronological order of receipt. I wrote: The mitzvah of lighting lamps in the home in honour of Shabbat was not enacted by one person but by all the sages. I am not able to give you a date, I'm afraid. It was enacted long before the time of the Tanna'im, and its origin is lost in the mists of time. Michael Simon writes: I recall reading in Louis Finkelstein's book 'The Pharisees' that the lighting of a lamp on shabbat (or more precisely prior to shabbat) was instituted by the Pharisees for two reasons. One had to do with their dispute with the Sadducees as to the interpretation of the verse prohibiting making a fire on shabbat. The Sadducees believed that the verse prohibited having anything lit during the course of shabbat. Therefore they would extinguish all lights prior to shabbat. The Pharisees believed that it only prohibited the actual lighting of fire on shabbat but a pre-lit fire could burn throughout shabbat. They thus ruled, as a demonstration of the correctness of their view that each household should light candles before shabat and keep them burning. The second reason had to do with climate. The Saducees lived mostly in Jerusalem where the days were longer and it wasnt as cold. Therefore there wasn't as great a need for candles or lamps. The Pharisees on the other hand lived in the hill country where it w[as cold]. I respond: The Karaites were the ideological descendents of the Sadducees in many ways, and I have already mentioned the dankness of a Karaite Shabbat. Rabbi Finkelstein may or may not be right. It is surmise. On one thing, however, I think he will be judged wrong by all Jerusalemites, who will read his comments on the climate of the holy city with a wry smile. His books were written in the 1930's and I would not be surprised if he had not yet visited Eretz-Israel. If he had he would have known that Jerusalem is most certainly in the hill country and a Jerusalem winter can be just as cold - if not colder - than elsewhere on the hilly ridge of Eretz-Israel. This winter saw snow in Jerusalem! Naomi Koltun-Fromm writes: On the issue of Shabbat and candle lighting, 2 comments: I think what Mike Mantel refers to as lighting shabbat candles at the dinner table is an American custom, or at least a cultural adaptation in a not-so-strictly-halakhic home. I too grew up in a home where candles were lit when ever we sat down to dinner as part of the Friday night shabbat ritual. Un-halakhic, yes, but also spiritually meaningful for those who are less concerned about the law but still wish to preserve a cultural/ethnic/religious practice! Two summers ago I spent a few months in Berlin (while at the same time my parents were in Helsinki!) In Berlin the sun did not set until close to 10. Since we did not live near any synagogues we could technically get on the subway, travel to and from the nearest shul, which had kabbalat shabbat at 8pm and return home before sunset! While this idea did not sit well with me we only attempted shul attendence once - more for the cultural experience than anything else. I do not know off hand what the traditionalist communities (present or past) of Berlin used to do on late summer shabbatot. My parents found out that in Helsinki, if I recall correctly, where the sun sets even later, the community sets an arbitrary time for shabbat to start and end on those shabbatot when the sun barely sets before it rises again. EXPLANATIONS (continued): 3: During the reign of King Hezekiah the Assyrian war machine was approaching its apogee. In 721 BCE it had already eliminated the northern kingdom of Israel and removed from there the most significant elements of the population. Now, at the beginning of the seventh century Sennacherib turned his attention to Judah. In his 'memoirs' Sennacherib [reigned 704-681 BCE] writes: As for Hezekiah of Judah, he did not submit to my yoke, so I laid siege to 46 of his strongholds ... and countless small villages in their vicinity and conquered them... I drove out of them 200,150 people... [The king] himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage... Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute ... due to me as his overlord, and I imposed this upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, overwhelmed by the terror-inspiring splendour of my lordship ... sent to Nineveh, my lordly city, 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver... The bible [2Kings 18:13-16] tells the sad story from the Judean point of view and adds that in order to pay the enormous tribute Hezekiah had to prise off the gold and silver that plated the doors to the sanctuary in the Bet Mikdash. 4: Hezekiah had already improved the capability of Jerusalem to withstand a prolonged siege by bringing water from outside the city to within the city via an underground conduit. This was a fantastic feat of engineering since the tunnel was started from both ends, requiring the two teams to meet up, underground, somewhere in the middle. Obviously, to permit the construction of the conduit the water had to be temporarily blocked off. The teams must have been very proud of themselves since they created a commemorative plaque which they hacked from the last remaining rock before they managed to break through to each other. You can walk through Hezekiah's tunnel today in Jerusalem and you can read the commemorative plaque today in Istanbul. 5: When we studied tractate Sanhedrin we explained the mechanics of intercalation at length. I wrote: According to Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamliעel in the first instance a Bet Din of three members convenes to discuss whether there is a need to intercalate the year. There were certain rules and regulations in this matter, some of which are summarized by the Gemara [Sanhedrin 11b]. The year is intercalated by reference to three factors: whether the ground crops have ripened, whether to fruit crop has ripened and whether the spring equinox has occurred. When two of these factors are counter-indicated the year is to be intercalated [to allow another month for the crops to ripen etc], but when only one of them is counter-indicated the year is not to be intercalated... The year is intercalated [for the above reasons] from indications in three regions: Judah, Transjordan and Galilee. When two of these regions indicate [a need for intercalation according to the above factors] the year should be intercalated, not not just for one of them... According to Rabban Shimעon ben-Gamliעel the Bet Din of three must first ascertain whether there is agreement concerning the need to intercalate the year. If all three members of the Bet Din are in agreement that this should be done, they are qualified to act upon their opinion - as taught by Rabbi Me'ir. However, if only two of the three think that the year should be intercalated a further two sages are co-opted onto the Bet Din. If three of the five think that the year should be intercalated two more sages are co-opted in order to make the actual decision. When only one member of the Bet Din of three thinks that the year should be intercalated his opinion is ignored and the matter is dropped; similarly, when three members of the Bet Din of five think that the year should not be intercalated the other opinion is ignored and the matter is dropped. In this 'machloket' the halakhah was decided according to the view of Rabban Shimעon ben-Gamliעel. I now add that once Rosh Chodesh Nisan had been announced it was no longer acceptable to declare that the month was not Nisan, but a second Adar. Hezekiah, our mishnah states, ignored this and incurred the disapproval of the sages. DISCUSSION: Here are some more of the many posts I have received concerning the lighting of the Shabbat candles. I bring them in chronological order of receipt. I wrote: What has Shemittah to do with Mount Sinai? Art Werschulz writes: Maybe you should explain this Rashi to the chevra. I don't know if everybody's going to be familiar with it. BTW, in modern Hebrew this is something like 'What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?'. Is my understanding correct on the idiomatic use of this phrase? I respond: Yes, your understanding is correct. The phrase, first used by Rashi in his commentary on Leviticus 25:1, now has taken on the colloquial meaning of something like "what has one thing to do with another?" On February 5th I explained the prohibition of lighting the Shabbat candles after sundown on Friday. On the following day Bayla Singer raised the question of communities where Shabbat begins at a late hour in the summer; I gave my response. Now Bayla writes again: Your comment about early Friday night services clarified the matter. Our synagogue service begins at 7:30 pm, and it's about 25 minutes travel time from the household I described. If one waited until 6:30 to light the candles before the meal, the meal itself would be very rushed and the spirit of welcoming Shabbat compromised. I would guess that the requirement for three meals on Shabbat is fulfilled in some other way, since the household is very learned as well as observant. I respond: Again, I do not understand the problem. It is quite possible to light candles at 6.30 and to reach the synagogue by 7.30 The meal may, nay should, be taken after returning from the synagogue. (In Israel in the summer we often sit down to eat at around 8.30.) I have hesitated a long while before deciding to respond to other elements in Bayla's message because I realize that the issue I wish to discuss is a very delicate matter; however, I have decided that it is important that I make my own view as clear as possible, even if it may not be acceptable to many participants. Shabbat is the most sacred ritual mitzvah that our Torah knows. (The ramifications of its observance are so spiritual and ideological that I am not certain that it can justifiably be classed purely as a ritual.) It is my conviction that the decision by the American Conservative rabbinate of 50 years ago to permit the use of the automobile on Shabbat was a grievous error and completely and utterly unjustified from the halakhic point of view. It is my opinion that the observant family described by Bayla would have been better served had they been taught not to drive to synagogue but to hold their own services at home and then have their festive meal. There is no halakhic imperative to worship in a synagogue (with or without a minyan); there is an almost supreme halakhic imperative to observe the sanctity of Shabbat, and this is given its main formative substance through the ramifications of the 39 basic actions that are prohibited on Shabbat as well as the positive mitzvot that are observed. On a much lesser level of importance is the requirement to celebrate Shabbat by having three substantial meals. The first is on the eve of Shabbat and before this meal Kiddush is recited. The second is the midday meal of Shabbat; there is a kiddush that can be recited before this meal as well. The third meal is taken during afternoon on Shabbat. All three meals should ideally be accompanied by singing and Grace. I wrote: On Yom Tov, the candles may be lit at any time during the evening, and it does not have to be before sunset. Fabrizio Haim Cipriani writes: That's absolutely new for me. I suppose you are implying that it's possible to do that from a fire already burning and lit before sunset, if this case it may be better to specify it. I respond: Fabrizio is absolutely correct and I should have made that point clear. I am grateful to him for the correction. Benjamin Fleischer writes: The rabbi at the University of Pennsylvania where I attended was of the opinion that Shabbat begins either when you accept it upon yourself (within a certain window before Friday sundown) or at Friday sundown. Hence, his little-known secret that candle-lighting doesn't really begin shabbat and that though women light then bless (if I recall this properly), an educated man may bless then light as long as he has not yet accepted upon himself the Sabbath. I respond: This is essentially correct. I have defined the 'window' in previous shiurim. We have already explained that the lighting of candles does not begin Shabbat but that the sages considered it to be such an essential preparation for Shabbat that they elevated it to the level of a (rabbinic) mitzvah. There is no reason why one cannot light the lights a long while before accepting the sanctity of Shabbat (within the 'window'), while making the mental reservation that the sanctity of Shabbat will take effect later within the 'window'. This applies equally to men and women. Similarly, I wrote: The lighting of the Shabbat candles does indeed signal the time the Shabbat restrictions take effect, provided that they were lit before sundown. Art Werschultz makes the same point as Benjamin (and my response is the same): Do you want to mention that if one makes a condition when lighting the candles before sundown that he or she is not accepting Shabbat, then the Shabbat restrictions don't yet take effect? For example, this allows people to light candles and then take a car to synagogue. This concludes our study of Chapter Four. Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 To RMSG Archive You can receive the shiurim of the Rabin Mishnah Study Group regularly via email if you wish. To subscribe to this service click here.