Electricity / Electronics / Electric Cars (9) – Some Specific Examples of Shevut (Part 1): Uvdin D’Chol

While there are many different Shabbat prohibitions that have been added by the Rabbis because of Shvut, we want to go into further detail about a few of the categories of Shvut that are particularly relevant to our question. This week we will look at the concept of Uvdin D’chol – Weekday activities.

The term Uvdin D’chol – or, ‘weekday activities’ – comes up frequently in responsa about Shabbat. It is considered an Issur Shvut, although it is not well defined and is used in a number of different ways.

One can find the source for Uvdin d’chol in the Talmud. The Mishnah in tractate Shabbat states:

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One may suspend the strainer on a Festival … And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival, and one may not place wine for filtering through a suspended strainer on Shabbat … [Mishnah Shabbat 20:1]

In explaining the prohibition of use the strainer on Shabbat, Abaye says:

It is a rabbinic decree issued so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week. [BT, Shabbat 138a]

This thinking, that we have to distance ourselves from the things we do during the week, can be found in Naḥmanides understanding of Shevut quoted above. He writes that ‘We should not be disturbed all day to measure our grain … and the shops would be open and money changers tables strewn with coins … like the rest of the week.’

Maimonides is more nuanced in his understanding of what constitutes a ‘weekday activity’. After listing various activities that are forbidden because of Shevut, he adds

Some acts are forbidden on the Sabbath even though they neither resemble nor lead to prohibited work. Why then were they forbidden? Because it is written: “If you refrain from following your business on the Sabbath, on my holy day… If you honour it, not following your wonton ways, not pursuing your business, nor speaking of it” (Isaiah 58:13). Hence, one is forbidden to go anywhere on the Sabbath in connection with his business, or even to talk about it. Thus, one must not discuss with his partner what to sell on the next day, or what to buy, or how to build a certain house, or what merchandise to take to such-and-such a place. All this, and the like, is forbidden, for it is written “nor speaking of it.” That is to say, speaking of business on the Sabbath is forbidden; thinking of it, however, is permitted. [Mishnah Torah 24:1]

He goes on to list many activities that are forbidden just because they ‘aren’t in the spirit of Shabbat’.

In a subsequent response, Maimonides further clarifies the matter.

And we are not saying in this that he should not do [any kind of activity] that he does during the week, meaning he should not eat since he also eats in the week, nor should he dine in the way he dines in the week. It is a clear that you never find things that the sages have forbidden just because he does them during the week. Rather, it refers to things that lead to doing a craft …  [Teshuvot HaRambam 306]

The dividing line between ‘an ordinary activity that we happen to do on Shabbat’ and ‘a weekday activity which is not in the spirit of Shabbat’ is ambiguous. This has led to many different opinions amongst the Poskim (Halakhic decisors) in defining this prohibition.

Uvdin D’Hol is a classic example of a subjective prohibition – what we have called a weak Shvut. That’s not to say that it isn’t an important consideration – but one where we would be more lenient if there were other extenuating circumstances

Based on: A New Responsum on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mordecai Schwartz and Rabbi Chaim Weiner.

Electricity / Electronics / Electric Cars (6) – Electricity on Shabbat (Part 2)

In our last post, we looked at the idea that electricity is forbidden on Shabbat because it is like fire. This week we will look at some other explanations that have been given for this prohibition.

BUILDING: Boneh:

R. Abraham Karelitz, known as the Hazon Ish [20^th century, Israel] argues that turning an electrical circuit on and off is forbidden under the categories of Boneh (building) and Soter (destroying). The logic is that by closing a circuit you are ‘building’ it (a circuit is only a circuit when it is complete) and when you break the circuit to turn an appliance off – you are destroying it.

This argument has been refuted. An electric appliance is made to be turned on and off. When you flick the switch, you are not building the circuit – you are just changing the position of the switch. If adjusting something so that it would be useful counts as ‘building’ – then turning on a water tap would count as ‘building a pipe’ and opening a door would be ‘breaking the wall’. This is obviously not the case as these activities have always been permitted. So this is certainly not a reason to proscribe the use of electricity.

FINISHING and OBJECT: Makeh B’fatish. (Striking a hammer blow).

Any action that completes a labour is included in this prohibition. The argument is like the above position regarding building – that by switching an appliance on you are completing it; bringing it to it’s working state. A kettle is only a kettle when it can be used to boil water.

The refutation is also similar – electrical appliances are made to be turned on and off. They are completed when they come of the production line – not every time they are used.

MAKING SOMETHING NEW: Molid: (making something new).

The Talmud [Beitza 23a] forbids spilling perfume on a garment on Shabbat to infuse it with a sweet smell as this would ‘permanently change the garment’. Thus, even a small change can turn something into something new. R. Yitzchak Schmelkis [19^th century, Ukraine] argues that when electricity flows through an appliance it ‘changes’ it – giving ‘birth’ to a new thing. This argument was rejected by later authorities because electric appliances are designed to be regularly turned on and off. They are not permanently changed by the electricity flowing through them and they do not become a new thing.

Over the years other arguments have been put forward to suggest that the use of electricity is Melakhah – a forbidden category of work on Shabbat, such as Mitakein Mana, Preparing a Utensil or even Bishul – cooking. None of these arguments is convincing and the simple conclusion is that using electricity isn’t an Issur Melakhah – an activity prohibited on Shabbat because it is a form of work.

That doesn’t mean that the use of electricity is permitted on Shabbat. The reason that Rabbis tried to find a way to prohibit the use of electricity on Shabbat was because they intuitively felt that electricity has, in our society, assumed the role fire played in the past. Throughout much of history, fire was the main form of energy that powered life; providing light, heat, powering the economy. In our world, electricity has taken over those functions. This brings us back to the challenge we posed in the first of this series of posts. In order to preserve Shabbat in modern society it is necessary to develop a new way of viewing Shabbat prohibitions that addresses the use of electricity.

Such a category already exists in the laws of Shabbat. There is a separate prohibition that is used for those things that are similar to the forbidden acts on Shabbat – even if they are exactly the same as them. This prohibition is called Shvut – and we will dedicate a future post to explain what Shvut is and why it is relevant to our question. 

Based on: A New Responsum on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mordecai Schwartz and Rabbi Chaim Weiner and  The Use of Electrical and Electronic Devices on Shabbat. Rabbi Daniel Nevins. CJLS 2012

Electricity / Electronics / Electric Cars (5) – Electricity on Shabbat (Part 1)

This brings us to one of the central issues – are you allowed to use electricity on Shabbat? While most Shabbat observant Jews assume that the answer is categorically no, it isn’t as straightforward as that. Electricity is a new technology that wasn’t known at the time of the Mishnah and Talmud. It doesn’t clearly fit any of the forbidden categories of labour that were listed in Mishnah. The mainstream position on the use of electricity on Shabbat is something that emerged over time.

Using Electricity also doesn’t meet the definition of Melakhah that we proposed above – making a lasting change to the environment. Using electricity in and of itself doesn’t make a lasting change – although electricity can be used to do so. So – what is the status of electricity in the Laws of Shabbat?

There have been many attempts to root the prohibition of using electricity in the 39 Avot Melakhah – the master categories of Shabbat prohibitions mentioned above. There isn’t room here to go through them all, so I’ll focus on the most common ones. For a fuller treatment of this subject, I highly recommend reading The Use of Electrical and Electronic Devices on Shabbat by Rabbi Daniel Nevins. [CJLS 2012]

The main categories that have been suggested as the source of the prohibition of using electricity are: Fire, Building, Finishing and Object and Creating Something new. This week we will look at the most common explanation given for the prohibition of using electricity – that it is similar to fire.

FIRE: Mavir and Mechabeh (lighting a fire and extinguishing a fire).

As electric appliances are used for many of the functions that were previously done by fire, this is the most obvious category to investigate as the source of the prohibition of using electricity. Electric power can be used to create both heat and light – which in the past would have come from burning a fire. But electricity doesn’t seem meet the halachic definition of fire. There is no combustion or flame and it doesn’t produce charcoal – which are the main characteristics of ‘real’ fire.

The Talmud discusses a source of heat that doesn’t involve combustion (which it calls a גחלת של מתכה – a metal ember). Heating metal to the extent that it gives off light and heat is basically the way that traditional light bulbs worked – and therefore this discussion is relevant to modern life.

Rambam summarises the discussion as follows:

A person who heats metal in order to anneal it in water—this is a derivative form of burning and is forbidden. [MT Shabbat 9:6] The Shulchan Aruch rules (when talking about removing fire hazards on Shabbat): If a coal is situated in a place where many can be damaged, it is permissible to extinguish it, whether it is made of metal or wood, but the Rambam forbids this if it is wood. The Magen Avraham then clarifies that ‘regarding metal there is no [prohibition of extinguishing] for it is not burning.’ [OH 335:35].

The conclusion at the end of that discussion is that even heating a filament to a very high temperature isn’t considered fire according to the Torah [DeOraita]. It is, however, forbidden by the Rabbis for other reasons.

In spite of this, intuitively, electricity feels similar to fire as both are important sources of energy that power our economy and our society. While that doesn’t make it into a Melakhah – it does have halachic significance. We will return to this point later in this series.

We will look at some of the other explanations that have been given for prohibiting the use of electricity on Shabbat in our next post.

Based on: A New Responsum on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mordecai Schwartz and Rabbi Chaim Weiner and  The Use of Electrical and Electronic Devices on Shabbat. Rabbi Daniel Nevins. CJLS 2012

Electricity / Electronics / Electric Cars (4) – What is Melakhah [Work]? (Part 2)

In our previous post, we started to look at various narratives to explain the logic behind the list of Melakhot. Last week, we looked at two narratives that connected the concept of Melakhah with the Mishkan, or the Tabernacle in the desert. We saw that neither of them we really used by the Rabbis in their discussions of the laws of Shabbat. This week we will look at two further narratives that play a greater role in rabbinic literature.

Narrative Three: Basic Human Needs

A close examination of the list of 39 forbidden labours that are found in Mishnah Shabbat suggests that the forbidden labours are arranged in four ‘courses’ of basic human labours that are the backbone of society: Food, Clothing, Writing documents and Shelter. Each of these activities is broken down into their constituent parts. Interestingly, the source of these lists isn’t in the realm of Shabbat. These are found elsewhere in Rabbinic literature as descriptions of everyday life. Note the following source from the Babylonian Talmud:

Ben Zoma, when he saw the crowds on the Temple Mount said, “Blessed is the one who created these to serve me. How hard did Adam toil before he could taste a morsel: he sowed, ploughed, reaped, sheaved, threshed, winnowed, bound sheaves, ground, sifted, kneaded, and baked, and only then could he eat. But I arise in the morning and find all these before me. How hard did Adam toil before he could wear a cloak? He sheared wool, whitened it, combed it, dyed it, spun, and wove, and afterwards wore it. But I arise in the morning and find all these before me.

BT Berakhot 6:2

These are descriptions of the basic activities necessary to sustain society. If this is the definition of Melakhah, then the meaning of Melakhah is to cease on the seventh day from those labours that are used to advance, develop and create our society, instead, spending a day enjoying the fruits of our labours and dedicating ourselves to our social and spiritual lives. This explanation fits neatly into the model of Shabbat as described in Abraham Heschel’s ‘The Sabbath’ quoted previously.

This is a beautiful explanation, which plays a big role in modern discourse about Shabbat. But, unfortunately, it too wasn’t used in the Talmud in its discussions of Shabbat law.

This brings us to our fourth and final narrative.

Narrative Four: Physical Changes in Form or Substance on Shabbat

Consider the following Mishnah:

One who builds: how much must he build to be liable? He who builds any amount, and he who chisels, and he who strikes with a hammer (makeh be-fatish) or with an axe, and he who bores [a hole] of any size, is liable. This is the general principle: whoever does work and their work endures on Shabbat, they are liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even one who strikes with a hammer on the anvil at the completion of his work is liable, because he is as one who improves his work.

M. Shabbat 12:1

While this Mishnah deals specifically with determining the amount of work one needs to do to quality as a transgression, the definition of Melakhah found in it is much broader as it relates to several different Melakhot. As Rashi explains in his commentary on this Mishnah, “this refers to the individual who does work.” That is to say, any work which results in physical change and reaches its enduring form on Shabbat is considered a melakhah”.

This source appears in a Halakhic context and gives a broad definition of Melakhah. This is the definition of Melakhah which we adopt in our responsa and will use for understanding the status of electricity and the use of electric cars on Shabbat.

We will look at the status of electricity on Shabbat in our next post.

Based on: A New Responsum on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mordecai Schwartz and Rabbi Chaim Weiner.

Electricity / Electronics / Electric Cars (3) – What is Melakhah [Work]? (Part 1)

We have now reached the key question. The central commandment of Shabbat is the prohibition against doing any work: לא תעשה כל מלאכה – you shall not do any work. [Ex. 20:10]. But what counts as work?

The Mishnah gives a list of the different categories of work in the 7th chapter of tractate Shabbat:

The 39 categories of melakhah are:
ploughing, sowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking,

shearing wool, washing wool, beating wool, dyeing wool, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying, untying, sewing stitches, tearing,

trapping, slaughtering, flaying, tanning, scraping hide, marking hides, cutting hide to shape, writing two or more letters, erasing two or more letters,

building, demolishing, extinguishing a fire, kindling a fire, putting the finishing touch on an object
and transporting an object between the private domain and the public domain.

Mishnah Shabbat 7:2

The Mishnah doesn’t provide any explanation of the logic behind this list, but in the Rabbinic literature, we find at least 4 different narratives that attempt to explain the meaning of work on Shabbat. We will examine them below.

Narrative One: The Construction of the Mishkan

The best-known explanation of the Melakhot is that which is found Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael, and subsequently in the Babylonian Talmud, particularly amongst the Amoraim of the later generations. This explanation sees a link between the construction of the Mishkan and the prohibitions of Shabbat.

… It is, [therefore] written “Moses then convoked the whole Israelite community and said to them: These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to do: On six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord…” (Exod. 35:1-2) before charging the people with the work of the sanctuary — to teach that such work is to be done on a weekday, and not on the Shabbat.

Subsequent debates in the Talmud are ambiguous about the role of this narrative. However, it is frequently quoted in later literature, for example in the Aruch HaShulchan:

All labours that were performed in the construction of the Mishkan- those are the labours that are forbidden on Shabbat.

[Michael Yechiel Halevy-Epstein, Aruch Ha-Shulchan, OH 242:9 ]

This explanation is not found in the Mishnah. The Talmud never uses it to explain why something has been forbidden – for instance, by saying that a specific activity is forbidden because that is what they used to do in the Temple. The Mishnah provides three other definitions of forbidden work on Shabbat. For these reasons, we don’t consider this explanation as being the prime narrative to explain the Shabbat prohibitions.

Narrative Two: Carrying and Reassembling the Mishkan

There are several places where the Mishnah connects between the work done in carrying and assembling the Mishkan and the laws of Shabbat. For example:

הַמּוֹצִיא בֵּין בִּימִינוֹ בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ, בְּתוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ אוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, חַיָּב, שֶׁכֵּן מַשָּׂא בְנֵי קְהָת.

If one carries something out, whether with his right or with his left hand, in his lap or on his shoulder, he is liable, because this is the way of the carrying of the children of Kohat.
M.Shabbat 10:3

Or

הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת…  חַיָּב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לֹא חִיְּבוּ שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם רֹשֶׁם, שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין עַל קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן, לֵידַע אֵיזוֹ בֶן זוּגוֹ.

He who writes two letters… is liable. Rabbi Jose said: they made one liable for writing two letters only because [he makes] a mark, since this is how they would write on each board of the tabernacle, to know which its companion was.

M. Shabbat 12:3

None of these sources connect the prohibition to the work of constructing the Mishkan – only the work connected to carrying and reassembling it. Also, these sources are all concerned with establishing the degree of liability in the case of transgression – but not in the actual definition of work itself. So, in our quest to find the primary meaning of Melakhah, we will need to continue to look elsewhere.

There are two other narratives in the Talmud to explain the rationale behind the Shabbat prohibitions. I will present them in my next post.

Based on: A New Responsum on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mordecai Schwartz and Rabbi Chaim Weiner

Electricity / Electronics / Electric Cars (2) – The Meaning of Shabbat

In my previous post, I introduced this series of posts on driving electric cars on Shabbat. Before delving into the halakhic sources – want to first reflect on the meaning of Shabbat itself.

Shabbat is one of the foundations of our faith. The idea appears in the first chapter of Genesis as the pinnacle of God’s creation of the world. It is one of the Ten Commandments, given to the children of Israel as part of the revelation on Mount Sinai. It is repeated in fourteen separate passages in the Torah and in every one of its books. It occupies an entire tractate in the Mishnah and the Talmud. It is hard to imagine a life of mitzvot that doesn’t have the idea of the seventh day dedicated as a day of rest at its heart.

Shabbat is first and foremost a day of rest. The earliest Rabbis elaborated on the idea of Shabbat, drawing from subtle references in the Torah and developing a great number of halakhot they described as ‘mountains suspended by hairs’ from the all-but-hidden clues they found in the Torah.  As we shall see, our Sages defined Shabbat-proscribed labours with pronounced detail. From the details they created narratives of work and rest that allowed them to develop and refine the day and make it a time for the elevation of the human spirit. This subtle point—Shabbat as a time to raise up the human heart—long remained an implicit understanding of Shabbat. 

The understanding of Shabbat as a counterbalance to technology is deeply embedded in the thinking of the Conservative Movement (and the wider Jewish community) through the writings of our revered teacher Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel.

Technology is one of the key features of modern life.

Technical civilization stems primarily from the desire of man to subdue and manage the forces of nature. The manufacture of tools, the art of spinning and farm­ing, the building of houses, the craft of sailing—all this goes on in man’s spatial surroundings. The mind’s preoccupation with things of space affects, to this day, all activities of man.

(Heschel, The Sabbath. pg. 3-4)

Shabbat is a time to put technology to the side and to focus on spiritual life, on our relationship with God and with each other.

The meaning of the Sabbath is to celebrate time rather than space. Six days a week we live under the tyranny of things of space; on the Sabbath, we try to become attuned to holiness in time. it is a day on which we are called upon to share in what is eternal in time, to turn from the results of creation to the mystery of creation; from the world of creation to the creation of the world.

(pg. 10)

This is the task of men: to conquer space and sanc­tify time.

We must conquer space in order to sanctify time. All week long we are called upon to sanctify life through employing things of space. On the Sabbath, it is given us to share in the holiness that is in the heart of time. Even when the soul is seared, even when no prayer can come out of our tightened throats, the clean, silent rest of the Sabbath leads us to a realm of endless peace, or to the beginning of an awareness of what eternity means. There are few ideas in the world of thought which contain so much spiritual power as the idea of the Sabbath. Aeons hence, when of many of our cher­ished theories only shreds will remain, that cosmic tapestry will continue to shine. 

(pg. 101)

It is from this perspective we will consider the place of electric vehicles in our Shabbat observance in the coming posts.

Based on: A New Responsum on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mordecai Schwartz and Rabbi Chaim Weiner.

Electricity / Electronics / Electric Cars (1)- Revisiting Shabbat in the Age of Technolgy

It has been a while since I last posted on this blog. I was recently asked to write a responsum for the Masorti Movement on the use of electric cars on Shabbat. This provided an opportunity for me to review some of the basic laws of Shabbat, the discussion around the use of electricity on Shabbat, technological change and the way that the halacha deals with these changes. The responsum that I wrote (together with my colleague Mordecai Schwartz) was quite a lengthy and technical piece. I have therefore decided to produce a more accessible version of it to share on this blog. I will break it down into multiple sections over several weeks. I hope you enjoy it.

It is possible to address the question of driving an electric car on Shabbat in a narrow sense: clarifying what actions one undertakes when driving an electric car and determining if these actions are permitted or not. It is also possible to take a much wider view of this question. We have chosen this second path.

We have chosen to see driving a car on Shabbat as one of many examples of cases where developing technology threatens to render part of the Jewish tradition irrelevant. It is not hard to imagine a world in which people no longer do physical ‘work’ in the traditional sense, where the normative rules of Shabbat would not apply. A world in which lights turn themselves on, home heating adjusts itself automatically to the outside world, where food cooks itself and cars drive themselves without any close human intervention. What is the meaning of a day of rest in a world in which most people no longer work?

The same thing is happening in other areas of our lives. What will Kashrut look like when food comes out of petri dishes or is printed on 3D printers? Will the categories of Meat and Milk disappear? Will sanctifying one’s life through the food they eat cease to be part of our tradition? What do you do with such profound changes? How do we address these changes in a meaningful way?

Social and technological change isn’t a new phenomenon at all. Jewish law has undergone profound change over the centuries. The Conservative Movement in Judaism was established as a response to change. One of the mottos of the Movement – Tradition and Change – sees the movement as defined by its approach to change, specifically its ability to further the preservation of Jewish tradition through a process of guided change.

It is our belief that in the face of such unprecedented change. it is our duty to reimagine Jewish practice and to adapt it to the new reality, Technological innovation may make some of our traditional practices seem irrelevant, but the core values of our tradition remain as important today as at any time in the past. In our rapidly changing society, traditional Jewish values are more important than ever. Tradition and Change doesn’t mean undermining traditional practice in the face of change but rather recasting it in a form in which it will retain its relevance in the Modern World.

Our approach to the question of driving an electric car on Shabbat is to attempt to reimagine Shabbat for a world where most of the traditional categories of Melakhah (work) are not relevant. In doing so we will need to have a new look at some of the key elements of a traditional Shabbat: What is the meaning of work on Shabbat? What is a Melakhah and how was this definition reached? What is the relationship between ‘not working’ and ‘resting’. How do you define ‘rest’? What part of Shabbat practice is Rabbinic and what comes from the Torah? After setting out our approach to these questions, we will give a ruling on driving an electric car as an example of how our vision of Shabbat can be applied to the many questions new technology poses.

I will continue to investigate these issues in my next post.

Rabbi Chaim Weiner

Based on: A New Responsum on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mordecai Schwartz and Rabbi Chaim Weiner.

34. When Is a Festival not a Festival?

Question:  After reading the Haftorah on the intermediate Shabbat of the festivals, does one recite the blessing for Shabbat or the blessing for the festival?

Answer: The Haftorah is a passage from the prophets which is read after the Torah reading on Shabbat and Yom Tov. There is no Haftorah reading on the intermediate days of the festivals. For this reason, our first instinct would be to say that since the Haftorah is being read only because of Shabbat, it is a ‘Shabbat Haftorah’ and therefore only the blessings for Shabbat should be recited. However, although the Haftorah is definitely a ‘Shabbat Haftorah’ the day is still a ‘festival day’! Why shouldn’t the festival also be mentioned? Shouldn’t the festival be acknowledged wherever the day is mentioned in a blessing, regardless of whether the activity specifically belongs to the festival or not?

Although the Talmud does not discuss this question directly, it does discuss a related question. In Tractate Shabbat [24 A and B] the Talmud asks whether the special addition for Hanukkah [Al HaNissim] should be added during the Musaf prayer of Rosh Hodesh Hannukah. There is no Musaf for Hanukkah and the prayer is only a ‘Rosh Hodesh prayer’. After some discussion, the Talmud concludes that the Hannukah paragraph is added. We also mention Shabbat in the Neila prayer on Yom Kippur. Although there is no Neila prayer for Shabbat, the day is still Shabbat. Shabbat is mentioned on all the prayers of Yom Kippur whether they are Shabbat prayers or not. This suggests that the Haftorah blessings of the intermediate days of festivals should mention the festival regardless of whether we consider this to be a ‘festival Haftorah’ or not.

But does an intermediate day of a festival count as being enough of a festival for the purpose of mentioning it in the Haftorah blessing. Although the intermediate days have some features of festivals, they are essentially weekdays. It is possible that they are simply not ‘festival’ enough to justify changing blessings.

Surprisingly, in normative Ashkenazi practice, there is a difference between Pesach and Succot. Our practice is that on intermediate Shabbat of Pesach we recite the Shabbat blessing but on the intermediate Shabbat of Succot we recite the festival blessing. The intermediate days of Succot are considered more of a festival than the intermediate days of Pesach.

The roots of this can be found in the Torah. When describing the festival of Succot the Torah dedicates a full paragraph to each of the days of the festival. For this reason, each day is considered a festival in and of itself, and therefore the festival blessing is recited. However, when describing the festival of Pesach, the Torah simply states “you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days” [Lev 23:6] including the intermediate days in this general statement. For this reason, the intermediate days of Pesach are not considered to be separate festivals. Therefore, we use the festival blessing for the Haftorah on Succot but for not for Passover.

This perhaps explains another difference between the two festivals. During the festival of Succot, we recite the full Hallel on each of the days of the festival. But during Pesach, we recite the full Hallel on the Yom Tov at the beginning of the festival, but not on the intermediate days.

Rabbi Chaim Weiner

Tishre 5777

Keeping in Sync

Question: This year the 8th day of Pesach in the Diaspora landed on Shabbat. This caused the reading of the Torah in Israel (which doesn’t have an 8th day) and the Diaspora to go out of sync. Why didn’t Diaspora Jews catch up with the reading in Israel on the following week by combining the readings of ‘Achrei-Mot’ and ‘Kedoshim’, which are frequently read together? Why do we wait almost 2 months, when we combine the readings of ‘Matot’ and ‘Masay’, before coming back together?

 

Answer: Keeping the reading in Israel and the Diaspora in sync was not a priority for the Rabbis. Over much of history most Jews would not have been aware that the Torah readings in Israel and in the diaspora are sometimes different. In both Israel and the Diaspora we follow the same set of rules for deciding when to combine readings, but because the festival calendars are not the same, the readings are sometimes different.

The Torah is divided into 54 different sections known as Parashot. Each week we read a different section from the Torah. Only one Parasha, VeZot HaBracha, is not read on a Shabbat, rather it is reserved as the reading for the festival of Simchat Torah.

The number of Shabbat readings that are required in any given year varies according to the calendar from a minimum of 46 to a maximum of 53. The number of readings that are needed depends on 2 factors; whether it is a leap year (which adds an extra 4 weeks to the year) and on how many festivals during the year land on Shabbat (thus displacing the normal Torah reading and reducing the number of readings that are needed). Altogether there are 14 readings that can potentially be combined, resulting in a maximum of 7 double parashot.

The division of the Torah into weekly readings and the system for combining them to match the calendar is not mentioned in the Talmud. It emerged over time. At the time of the Mishna the weekly reading of the Torah was fluid. There weren’t set readings for each week but rather, there were rules that were followed to make sure that the reading was finished at the appropriate time. For example:

‘Rabbi Simeon ben Elazar says: Ezra established that the curses in the Book of Leviticus should be read before the festival of Shavuot and the curses in the book of Deuteronomy before Rosh Hashanah.’ [BT, Megillah 31b]

Over time these rules became more complicated. Maimonides writes in his code:

“The common custom is that the portion ‘Bamidbar’ is read before Shavuot, ‘Va’etchanan’ after Tisha b’Av, ‘Niztavim’ before Rosh Hashanah. In a regular year (i.e. not a leap year) ‘Tzav’ is read before Pesach. [MT Laws of Prayer 13:2]

The system we now follow for deciding when to combine the readings follows the guidelines set out by Maimonides. The general rule is that we read one portion each week until we come to one of the signposts for correcting the reading. If at that point we are too far ahead in our reading, we double the nearest pair of potential parashot that come before that signpost in order to keep on schedule.

This is how it works. The first 4 double portions [‘Vayakhel’ – ‘Pekuday’ / ‘Tazria’ – ‘Metzora’ / ‘Acharei-Mot’ – ‘Kedoshim’ / ‘Behar’ – ‘Behukotai’] are reserved to adjust the reading for a leap year. They are doubled in a regular year and read separately in a leap year. The remaining 3 potential doubles [‘Hukkat’ – ‘Balak’ / ‘Matot’ – ‘Masay’ / ‘Nitzavim’ – ‘Vayelech’] are reserved for years where a festival lands on Shabbat and the reading gets out of sync with the calendar. There are corrections before Shavuot, before Tisha b’Av and Rosh Hashanah to keep everything on track.

Diaspora communities celebrate an extra day of Yom Tov for each festival. Therefore, in the diaspora it is more common for a Yom Tov to land on Shabbat and more doubles are required.  As a matter of fact, in Israel it never happens that all 53 parashot are read separately over the course of a year. Also, the portions of ‘Hukkat’ and ‘Balak’ are never combined in Israel.

Rabbi Chaim Weiner

Iyar 5776

[Note: there are some unique years when, for a variety of factors, the reading is slightly different from that stated above. These are very rare and there isn’t room to address all of the possible variations in this post.]

 

Based on: Parsha Management, – Doubling, Halving Accuracy, Shekldon Epstein, Bernard Dickman and Yonah Wilamowsky

_______________________________________________________

If you enjoy Jewish travel, check out my trips! Currently booking trips to Uzbekistan (The Jews of the Silk Route) and Andalucía (The Jews of Muslim Spain) .

For Details: CLICK HERE or email  info@jewishjourneysltd.com

A Sabbath Blessing

Question: Should the Priestly Blessing (Birkat Kohanim) be recited on a festival that falls on Shabbat?

Answer:  The obligation to recite the Priestly Blessing is found in the Torah. “Speak to the sons of Aaron: Thus shall you bless the people of Israel. Say to them …” [Num. 6:22-23]. Of all of the positive commandments directed at the priests, it is the only one that is not dependent on the existence of the Temple – and therefore the only one that is still practised today.

According to the Shulchan Aruch, [OC 128] the Priestly Blessing is recited daily during the repetition of the Amidah in the morning service – corresponding to the time it was recited in the Temple. It is also said during the Musaf prayers on the Sabbath and Festivals.

However, amongst the Ashkenzi communities in the Diaspora, it is a long established custom to limit this observance exclusively to the Musaf prayers of the festivals. Rabbi Moshe Isserlis [Poland, 16th century], the major codifier of Ashkenazi practice, writes:   “It is the custom in these countries to only recite the Priestly Blessing on festivals, for that is when one is immersed in the joy of the festival. … and they recite it in the Musaf prayer, before they leave the synagogue engrossed in the joy of the festival.”

Isserlis connects the Priestly Blessing to the concept of joy. There is a special joy on festivals which is different from weekdays and Shabbat. In the Shabbat Amidah, Shabbat is described as a time of love – in the equivalent Amidah for the festivals they are described as a time of joy. The Birkat Kohanim is recited at the end of Musaf, because the joy of Yom Tov is greatest at the end of the service – when one is about to go home to partake in the festive meal.

There are other explanations for the Ashkenazi custom. Some commentators connect the recitation of the Priestly Blessing to the service of the Priests in the Temple. Although the Priests no longer serve in the Temple – the closest we come to Temple service are the Musaf prayers which recount the offerings on the altar, so this is the most appropriate time for reciting the blessing.

Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein [Aruch Hashulchan, 128] [Lithuania, 19th century] rejected this custom. He writes: In our countries we do not recite the Birkat Hakohanim [daily] but there is no good reason for this. He goes on to say that ‘it is a bad custom’. מנהג גרוע הוא There is anecdotal evidence that Rabbi Elijah of Vilna [the Vilna Gaon] wished to reintroduce the daily recitation of the Priestly Blessing – but was prevented from doing so.

Although the custom in the Diaspora is to only recite the blessing on festivals, the custom in Israel is to recite it daily. The reason is probably historical. Amongst the earliest settlers in Israel in the modern period were the students of the Vilna Gaon. They probably brought the Gaon’s practice with them when they came to Israel, and it has remained the custom there to this day.

Many communities refrain from reciting the blessing when a Yom Tov falls on the Sabbath. Rabbi J. Soloveichik challenged the custom. It is reported that when he was a young Rabbi, he sought to introduce it in his synagogue and was subsequently dismissed from his pulpit. [Nefesh Harav]

In summary, although the Ashkenazi custom is to limit the recitation of the Priestly Blessing in the diaspora to Yom Tov, there is no good reason not to recite it when a festival lands on Shabbat. If an Ashkenazi community wishes to reintroduce it, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.

Rabbi Chaim Weiner

This study sheet is sponsored by Jewish Journeys Ltd: Currently booking trips to Ethiopia  (Lost Tribes).

For Details: CLICK HERE or email  info@jewishjourneysltd.com