In attempting to introduce some semblance of order, from the critical point of view of modern technology, into the current Polemics in the world of Halacha concerning the use of the incandescent bulb on the Shabbat, we must bear in mind, at the very outset, one important fact: that, at the present stage of the game we can come to no definitive conclusion. The entire problem is exceptionally delicate, because of the great stress laid in the Halacha on the laws of Shabbat and particularly on the laws concerning fire, and we must not forget that we are, figuratively as well as literally, playing with fire. Let no one be "moreh heter"—act lightly, because of the conclusions of one Rabbi or one authority. Let me briefly review for you the fundamentals of the laws of Shabbat as delineated by the Sages of the Mishna and the Talmud. The מלאכות שבת, the types of "work" which are forbidden on Shabbat (and the term "work" is used here in a technical sense, not in the layman's sense, just as the term "work" has a special technical meaning for the physicist) are derived from the types of work needed for the building of the Mishkan, since both passages—relating to Shabbat and Mishkan—are סמוכות, next to each other. The number of such categories of work is 39, the ל״ט מלאכות שבת. These 39 major categories are known as אדות, and each אד is subdivided into minor categories known as תולדות, the requirement being that each Toladah be similar to its Av in some certain specified manner. Let us now single out four of these Avot which will be of special interest to us. We have הדערה, making a fire, and extinguishing a fire. On הדערה the Torah issued a special prohibition, aside from the general sentence. "Thou shalt not make a fire in any of thy dwelling places on the day of the Shabbat!" Another Av Melachah is __________, which literally means "cooking", but, as we shall see later, has certain other and more inclusive connotations. The fourth Av Melachah I wish to mention is __________,…

The institution of Late Friday Services in American Synagogues, even in a number of otherwise strongly Orthodox ones, is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It is for that reason that, to my knowledge, the matter has not yet been analyzed with a view to testing its Halachic permissibility and, as a result, recommending either its acceptance, rejection or modification. Yet the introduction of this innovation into our own synagogues places upon us the responsibility, which we cannot escape, of developing just such a critique. This problem to which we address ourselves, like others of its kind on the contemporary scene, must be treated on two levels: the purely Halachic and the “trans-nalachic.” By the latter term I mean those matters which cut across technical lines, and are questions of policy that are primarily subjective value judgements in which we look at the picture in its totality, and take into consideration such elements of basic principle and public psychology as Pritzas Geder, Eis Laasois the comparative worth of Tefiloh Betzibor and שינוי מטבע שטבעו חכמים. While the purely Halachic issues require more scholarship, these trans-halachic matters call for more wisdom, and will ultimately be as decisive as the purely Halachic in determining our future practice. Of course, this dichotomy cannot be taken too literally, for the Halacha must necessarily deal with these larger “gestalt” issues as well, in the formulation of a final decision. But in this study I shall attempt to concentrate, insofar as possible, on the Halachic material per se. I shall do so, of course, without attempting to be comprehensive or presuming to offer my Psak. This is merely a first attempt to present some of the aspects of the problem for consideration. Description and Origin of Problem: The Late Friday Service is usually held during the winter months, when candle lighting takes place in the early afternoon. At about 8 or 8:30 P.M., the Kabolas Shabos and Maariv is held. This may be eith…

The Time Element B: The next phase of our analysis of the time-element does not involve the matter of Tosefes Shabos and the fear that a Late Service will result in its violation, but concerns a totally different though less severe question. And that is the subject of Orach Arah or Derech Eretz. The source of this argument is Shabos 23b where the Talmud relates that the wife of R. Joseph was late in kindling the candles. Her husband rebuked her for her negligence, on the basis of a Breisoh that: לא ימוש עמוד הענן יומם ועמוד האש לילה מלמד שעמוד ענן משלים לעמוד אש – רש"י אלמא אורח ארעא בהכי His wife then began to kindle the lights much earlier when, we read, אמר לה ההוא סבא תנינא ובלבד שלא יקדים ולא יאחר. The following should be mentioned with regard to this thesis: 1) As stated, Rashi refers to it as Orach Arah, and it is thus of a lower level of severity, since it does not inherently involve the essential laws of Shabos. Further evidence in support of Rashi that this does not touch on the question of Kdooshas Hayoim can be adduced from Yalkut Shimoni (Bshalach 230) where we read as follows: בא הכתוב ללמדך דרך ארץ מן התורה על ערבי שבתות עד שעמוד הענן קיים יהי עמוד האש צמח 2) Even more important in this connection is the possibility that this entire episode of R. Joseph and his wife, and the dictum of Hahoo Sava, does not refer to the Sabbath candles but to the Chanukah candles. Such is the reading of Bahag, Hilchos Chanukah. A similar conclusion may be derived from a study of the text of R. Asher (assuming that all references to Ner on that folio are consistent – cf. text of Alfasi), although the Vilno Gaon emends the text with the word שבת indicating that the entire discourse refers to both Shabos and Chanukah. Maimonides mentions the prohibition of Loi Yakdim Vloi Yaacher as a unit only with regard to Chanukah in Hilchos Chanukah Perek 5, Halacha 5, and not in regard to Shabos; in the laws of the latter (Perek 8 Halacha 3), he only mentions the prohibition of late…

Rabbi Norman Lamm is to be commended for dealing boldly and in a Halachic manner with a subject of practical importance to every rabbi. This attests to our frequently affirmed belief that all topical questions must be treated Halachically and must be resolved only within its disciplines. In the first phase of his exposition, Rabbi Lamm compares the late Friday Night Service with the early Saturday Night Service which is permitted by the Talmud (BROCHOS 27b) but is regarded as an unfitting practice by Tosafos. The fears of the elimination of Tosefos Shabbos and Chashash M'lacha raised by Tosafos should, therefore, equally be applied to the late Friday Service. Rabbi Lamm posits, however, that the tacit approval of the early Saturday Night Service by the Rambam should be carried over to our question. Now if this approach is correct, it is fair to mention that the Shulchan Oruch (O.Ch. 293-3) adopts the view of Tosafos which should be for us Halacha Lemaseh. Even when a clear doubt exists the rule is to follow Sugyon d'alma (see 33a Sanhedrin) and the traditional practice all over is not to hold the Saturday Night Service before it is night. Rabbi Lamm may be correct in his suggestion that the Rambam does not object to the early Maariv on Saturday because he does not require Tosefos Shabbos. Then, it is an oversimplification to resolve our problem into a controversy between the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Rabbis, since the Rambam and the Tur stand alone (see Bes Joseph 261) in their silence of Tosefos Shabbos. All the other Rishonim including such non-Ashkenazim as Rav HaGaon and Ray Alfasi agree that Tosefos Shabbos is mandatory. But I think that the “din" of the early Shabbos Maariv would apply also to Yom Kippur where even the Rambam admits Tosefos for fasting at least. The reason should rather be found in Rambam Chapter XXIX of Hilchoth Shabbos in the 11th halacha where he says that the Mitzvah of Kiddush and Havdala is to be practiced at the time of the entrance and…

The oneness of God is universally acknowledged as the foundation stone of Judaism and its main contribution to the world. The theme of the Shema, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One,” underlies every single aspect of Jewish life and thought, and permeates every page of its vast literature. So powerful is this vision of God’s unity that inevitably it must express the corollary that the divine unity is the source of a unity that encompasses all existence.[1] Nowhere is the idea of yichud ha-shem, the Unity of God, given more poignant and intense express on than in the Kabbalah. In Jewish mysticism the Unity of God is not only one of the mightiest themes, but it becomes a living reality, per-haps the only reality. God’s unity is taken not alone as an arithmetic proposition, but as the unification of all existence, in all its awesome diversity, through God. It is symbolized, in the Kabbalah, by the unity within God Himself. It is this unity — elaborated, explained, enhanced, and expounded by kabbalists from the Zohar through the late Rav Kook — of which our modern world stands in such desperate need. If it was eve' necessary to reaffirm that theme, with its conscious rejection of all conflict, multiplicity, and fragmentation, it is today, when mankind stands poised, ready to blow itself to bits both physically and conceptually.In this paper we shall examine the treatment of the Unity of God in one expression of the Jewish spirit, the Kabbalah — particularly in the Zohar and in the works of its most recent exponent, the late Rav Kook, Chief Rabbi of the Holy Land; in one sacred institution of Judaism, the Sabbath; and in one famous hymn of the Prayerbook, the Lekhah Dodi, a kabbalistic poem which celebrates the Sabbath. Our purpose is not a his-torical presentation of the Unity Theme, but rather to see what it can yield for us in the way of instruction: its implication for moderns.The reader who is unacquainted with the atmosphere and terminology of the…

The central precept of Shabbat is the refraining from indulging in melakhah, in creative changes in nature, which is the halakhic definition of "work." A corollary, however, is rest or menuhah. The Bible (in the second version of the Ten Commandments), says that we must observe the Sabbath "that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou" (Deut. 5:14). This means that on Shabbat we should not work in the ordinary lay sense of the term. We should not go to our offices or our schools or our factories or our stores.Apparently, this is a purely negative act. It is a vacation, a day off. But is it really so? The significance of *menuhah* is emphasized throughout the Sabbath liturgy. Three times we pray, "Our God and God of our fathers, be pleased with our rest (*menuhah*)..." as though our *menuhah* were a form of *avodat ha-Shem* as are sacrifices. Obviously we are not dealing with a mere self-indulgent vacation, anthropomorphically invoking God's maternal approval of our concern with our health. The *minhah* prayer, which celebrates the qualities of *menuhah*, concludes its central portion on this note: "...and by means of (Israel's) *menuhah*, they sanctify Thy Name." Sabbath rest is thus nothing less than a vehicle for the observance of Judaism’s most illustrious precept, *kiddush ha-Shem*, "the sanctification of the divine Name." But to "sanctify the Name" means to act in such a manner, generally before Gentiles, that glory will redound to Judaism and enhance the Name (i.e., reputation) of the God of Israel in the world.Obviously we are dealing with something far more fundamental than just taking a day off from work every week. There lies within *menuhah* a concept that Jews must teach to all mankind (unlike the halakhic observance of the prohibition of *melakhah* which was covenanted just for Israel) and the appreciation of which will add to the glory of God and Torah. We are dealing, in other words, with a Jewish ideal of universal import and r…