Pesachim IV

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.

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.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

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.

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.

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]:

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.

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.

2:
Rambam [Ĥametz u-Matzah 8:11] quotes our mishnah almost word for word:

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.

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] –

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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)

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 Yos&#0233 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.

1. To wash the hands before eating bread(we spent a whole tractate learning this!)
2. To light the Shabbat (and YomTov) candles (we have mentioned this just recently).
3. To create an Eruv where necessary.
4. To recite Hallel on festivals.
5. To light the candles on Ĥanukah.
6. To read the Megillah on Purim.
7. 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.

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…)

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.

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 &#293ag.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.