Shabbat - Chapter Five

Although the Rambam discusses the mitzvah of delighting in the Sabbath in Chapter 30, he mentions the kindling of the Sabbath lights in a separate chapter, for they require extensive discussion. He also positions this chapter relatively early in this set of Halachot, for the Sabbath candles are kindled before the Sabbath and bring the Sabbath into our homes. This also follows the pattern of the Mishnah which discusses the kindling of the Sabbath lamps in the first two chapters of the tractate.

See Hilchot Berachot 11:2; the Rambam differentiates between mitzvot that are obligations that a person must endeavor to fulfill, mentioning tefillin which is a daily obligation and sukkah and lulav which are obligations that are incumbent on us at a certain time each year, and mitzvot "that are not obligations, but resemble voluntary activities."

In the latter category, he includes mitzvot that we are obligated to fulfill only when we put ourselves in a situation that require it - e.g., the mitzvah of mezuzah. A person is not required to live in a house that requires a mezuzah. If, however, he chooses to do so, he must fulfill that mitzvah.

Similarly, with regard to the mitzvot mentioned by Rambam in this halachah: There is no necessity to eat bread or other foods that require washing our hands, nor is it necessary to carry in a courtyard (or perform any of the other activities that require an eruv).

(Kinat Eliyahu comments that the Rambam chose the washing of the hands and eruv as examples in this halachah, because they - like the kindling of the Sabbath candles - are Rabbinic commandments.

See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 3:10 which mentions another dimension of the obligatory nature of this mitzvah.)

Note the Maggid Mesharim, which states that there is another dimension to lighting Sabbath candles. The Karaites did not accept the Oral Law including the Sages' explanation that one could leave a light burning on the Sabbath and by kindling Sabbath lights, one made a statement countering their doctrine. Since the Rambam also strove against these heretics, one may assume that part of his emphasis on the obligatory nature of this mitzvah is directed toward them.

See Halachah 3.

In Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 7:7 (based on Pesachim 10:1), the Rambam states that even a person who derives his income from charity should not drink less than four cups of wine on Pesach, we can conclude that the same concept applies with regard to the Sabbath lights. Indeed, as the Rambam explains in the conclusion of Hilchot Chanukah, the Sabbath lights receives priority over the recitation of Kiddush. See also Megillah 27b which mentions selling or pawning one's clothes to perform a mitzvah.

See Chapter 30, Halachah 5, which explains that kindling a Sabbath lamp is an expression of honor for the Sabbath. See also the conclusion of Hilchot Chanukah which explains that the Sabbath lamps bring about peace in the home, safeguarding the inhabitants from "stumbling over wood and stones."

Significantly, this blessing is not mentioned in the Talmud and even in Rav Sa'adiah Gaon's time was not a universally accepted practice. In the Rambam's time, however, it had been adopted already throughout the international Jewish community.

See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 1) and Hilchot Berachot 11:3, where the question is raised: How can we say that God has commanded us to perform these mitzvot, which are of Rabbinic origin? Seemingly, they were instituted by men.

The Rambam answers that since God commanded us to obey the decrees of the Sages, observing the mitzvot that they ordained is fulfilling His command.

In contrast to the Chanukah candles, whose light we may not use (Hilchot Chanukah 4:6,8), we are permitted to use the light of the Sabbath candles. Indeed, Shabbat 23b associates the Sabbath candles with peace in the home, explaining that they prevent the members of the household from stumbling over obstacles, and also allow them to avoid the discomfort of sitting in darkness.

See Halachot 14-16.

Were one to tilt the lamp for it to burn brighter, one would be liable for the forbidden labor of kindling a fire.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not mention the obligation to add from the weekday to the Sabbath. Note the Maggid Mishneh (Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor, ch. 1) which states that although the Rambam maintains that we are obligated to make such an addition on Yom Kippur, he does not require such an addition to be made on the Sabbath. The wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 261:2) indicates that it does not consider the obligation to be such an addition on the Sabbath as an absolute requirement. Nevertheless, the later Ashkenazic authorities consider it as such.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) also mentions that it is customary to light candles before sunset when the sun is seen in the treetops.

Bereshit Rabbah, ch. 17, associates the woman's responsibility to light the Sabbath lamp with the fact that, through the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, Chavah, the first woman, extinguished the light of the world. Shabbat 32a associates the lighting of the Sabbath candles with the woman's responsibility to insure the shining of (Proverbs 20:27) "the lamp of G‑d, the soul of man."

Shabbat 34a emphasizes that this statement should be made gently. The Rambam does not mention this point explicitly, for in Hilchot Ishut 15:19, when he describes the nature of the husband and wife relationship, he stresses how a husband must relate to his wife with tender care at all times.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:6), the Rambam interprets this as referring to beyn hash'mashot as described in the following halachah.

There are three basic positions regarding the duration of beyn hash'mashot. Shabbat 34b relates that it refers to the time that it takes one to walk 3/4 of a mil after sunset. The other two positions are found in Pesachim 94a. One defines beyn hash'mashot as the amount of time needed to walk four mil after sunset, and the other, as the time necessary to walk five mil.

There are two different opinions concerning the duration of the time it takes to walk a mil. The Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:2), maintains that it takes 24 minutes to walk a mil. However, the most widely held opinion - and the opinion accepted regarding halachah l'ma'aseh, is that it takes 18 minutes to walk this distance.

The Rambam as well as many other Rishonim base their determination of beyn hash'mashot on Shabbat 34b. Thus in practice, the appearance of the stars is determined as 13 1/2 (3/4 x 18) minutes after sunset. Both the Vilna Gaon and Shulchan Aruch HaRav maintain that this is the duration of beyn hash'mashot. Thus, the proper local time may be calculated by extrapolation based on the amount of light visible 13 1/2 minutes after sunset in Eretz Yisrael on the day of the equinox. Generally, people wait up to 36 minutes after sunset on Saturday night in order to be certain.

According to Pesachim 94a, the appearance of the stars will be either 72 (4 x 18) minutes or 90 (5 x 18) minutes after sunset. Rabbenu Tam strongly suggests adhering to the position that צאת הכוכבים takes place 72 minutes after sunset. Though some authorities support the 90-minute position, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chayim, Vol. 1, Responsum 24), mentions only the position of the Vilna Gaon and Shulchan Aruch HaRav, on the one hand, and Rabbenu Tam on the other.

I.e., we are prohibited against performing forbidden labors during this time on both Friday and Saturday nights.

Had the person performed a forbidden labor during beyn hash'mashot on either Friday or Saturday, he would not be liable for a sin offering, since we are unsure whether beyn hash'mashot is day or night. If, however, he performed a forbidden labor at the same time beyn hash'mashot on both Friday and Saturday, he is surely liable, for at one of the two times, he performed a forbidden labor on the Sabbath day (Shabbat 35b).

The definition of the last five substances is dependent on the Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah, Shabbat 2:1. See his Commentary on the Mishnah.

Although Rashi, Shabbat 27b, excludes cotton, the Rambam's view is accepted by most authorities including the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 264:1).

Note the gloss of the Ramah (loc. cit.) which states that if a person used any of these substances for a wick he is forbidden to benefit from the light, lest he tilt it to cause it to burn brighter. He does, however, also mention the possibility of leniency in certain instances.

Rabbenu Asher in his gloss to Shabbat 21a explains that this was prohibited lest this leniency cause one to think that one may light a Shabbos lamp with the forbidden substances alone at a later date.

Shabbat 21a relates that in Rabban Gamliel's household a wick was wound around a portion of a nut shell.

Rashi, Shabbat 67b, explains that this makes the oil burn brighter.

The Tosefta, Shabbat 2:6, explains that this will cause the wick to burn slower.

These substances were prohibited to be used as wicks lest one tilt the candle to produce a better light. When they are being used in a larger fire, the quantity of fuel will produce a steady light and there is no reason to suspect that one might tilt the fire. See Chapter 3, Halachah 19.

We have used a non-literal translation for the Hebrew שמן, which literally means "oil," since some of the substances mentioned in this halachah are not oils.

The word "molten" was added in both these instances on the basis of Shabbat 20b which notes that candles made of beeswax are acceptable. Rabbenu Asher states that the same principle applies regarding tar. The prohibition against using them applies only when they are molten and used as fuel for a lamp in the place of oil.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:1, based on one of the opinion's in Shabbat 21a), the Rambam identifies kik oil with the kikayon plant mentioned in the Book of Yonah.

Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions a different reason, lest one be dissatisfied with the light and leave the room where it is burning.

Shabbat 21a explains that these two fuels are fit to use for a Sabbath light when they are in a liquid state. Nevertheless, the Sages forbid their use lest one use them as fuel when they were solid. Accordingly, when another fuel is mixed together with them, there is no necessity for a further safeguard.

Rav Kapach explains the reason for the Sages' decree as follows: Although tallow and fish entrails are acceptable as fuels when they are in a liquid state, the possibility exists that they will harden as the lamp is burning. Hence, it is prohibited to use them alone. In contrast, when other fuels are mixed with these substances, they prevent them from hardening and therefore, such a mixture may be used for the Sabbath lights.

The Rambam implies that even when these fuels are mixed with acceptable fuels they do not burn well. In contrast, Rashi, Shabbat 21a explains that when they were mixed with other fuels, they would burn well, the Sages, however, forbid the use of such mixtures, lest one use the unacceptable fuels alone.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's version of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:2). A similar interpretation is attributed to Rav Sa'adiah Gaon.

Removing fuel from a lamp is forbidden, for by doing, one causes the lamp to be extinguished sooner. This is included in the forbidden labor of extinguishing [Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:2,4); see also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 264:3 and Beitzah 22a].

[Significantly, as Rav Kapach comments in his notes, the Rambam changed his mind concerning this matter several times (and thus there is a discrepancy between his version and the ordinary printed text of this work.]

The Mishnah (Shabbat 2:2) relates that Rabbi Tarfon stated that olive oil is the only fuel acceptable for use in the Sabbath lamp. The Talmud (Shabbat 26a) relates that Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri protested this statement, "What shall the Babylonians do, for they have only sesame oil? What shall the Medians do, for they have nothing but nut oil? What shall the Alexandrians do, for they have nothing but radish oil?"

The Sages accepted Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri's view and accepted the possibility of using other oils. It is not merely after the fact that they are acceptable, but ab initio, they may be used. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 264:6) states that it is most desirable to use olive oil for this purpose.

Lamps would be constructed in the following manner to prevent the flame from consuming a large quantity of oil. The wick would be placed inside a shallow dish that contained a minimal amount of oil. A container would be placed above the dish from which oil would flow into the dish (Shabbat 2:4). The Sages forbade using such a lamp on the Sabbath, even if the oil was placed in it before nightfall.

This instance is also mentioned in the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:4). The Talmud (Shabbat 29a) explains why it is necessary to cite both instances.

As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 10, removing oil designated to be used for a lamp from the lamp is forbidden and is considered equivalent to the forbidden labor of extinguishing a flame.

Were the oil to be in the lamp itself, there would be no worry that one would use it, the smut from the wick would cause it to become repugnant. Since, however, it is in a container separate from the lamp, there is the need for a Rabbinic decree.

In these instances, there is no connection between using the oil and the forbidden labor of extinguishing a flame. Nevertheless, doing so is forbidden, because of the prohibition of muktzeh.

As will be explained in Chapters 24-26, the Sages forbade the handling of certain objects on the Sabbath because they were muktzeh, designated not to be used on the Sabbath. Among the categories of muktzeh are objects that are involved with a forbidden labor at the commencement of the Sabbath.

The fact that the container is attached to the lamp will cause a person to remember the prohibition and refrain from taking oil from it on the Sabbath [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 265:1)].

In Chapter 25, Halachah 23, the Rambam explains the reason for this prohibition. Nullifying the potential to use a utensil is tantamount to breaking it and is, hence, forbidden on the Sabbath.

In this instance, it would no longer be permitted to use the container placed under the lamp for the following reason: As explained in Chapter 25, Halachah 17, when an article that is not forbidden to be moved is used as a container for an article that is forbidden, the container becomes forbidden. Accordingly, since the oil is muktzeh as explained in the previous halachah, it causes the container used to collect it to become forbidden as well. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 3:6.)

If the container was placed there on Friday, the activity that causes the container to be forbidden is not being carried out on the Sabbath itself. Hence, there is no reason for it to be prohibited. It must be emphasized that the oil that collects in the lamp on the Sabbath may not be moved and this in turn causes the moving of the container to become likewise prohibited (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 265:3, Mishneh Berurah 265:10).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit., Rav Kapach's version), the Rambam writes that by placing the water there, it is considered as if he extinguished the fire with his hands. Although this activity is performed before the Sabbath, the Rabbis forbade it. Unlike the activities mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 3, they considered that in this instance, if a person was allowed to place a dish with water under the lamp before the Sabbath, he might do so on the Sabbath as well. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 4, and notes.

In this and the following halachot, the Rambam elaborates on the principle he stated in Halachah 2, that activities that require careful discernment cannot be performed by the light of a lamp on the Sabbath, lest one tilt the lamp so that the light shines brighter.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:3). The Ramah (Orach Chayim 275:1) interprets the phrase to mean "remove lice from his garments."

This refers to an oil or kerosene lamp. There is a debate among the halachic authorities (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 275:1 and commentaries) if it also applies to wax candles. Today, most authorities do not forbid using the lights of the paraffin candles common today for such activities. Needless to say, there is no prohibition with regard to electric lights.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that this prohibition applies even when the lamp is fixed in the wall.

The Rambam's intent is that the Sages enforced this decree universally even in situations where it is impossible that the person would tilt the lamp so that a person would never be motivated to do so.

The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that this leniency does not apply when the two people are studying from two separate texts even when they are studying a single subject.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) states that if a person has someone else watch him, he is permitted to read by the light of a lamp.

Furthermore, when two people are studying separate subjects, they are forbidden to use a lamp even when they are studying from a single text (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 275:3).

And will not pay attention to the activities of the other.

The Rambam appears to limit this leniency only to a situation where the teacher is actually present and is watching his students' conduct. The Rashba, by contrast, states that a child may read by a light even when his teacher is not in the room, for he is constantly worried that he may enter. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 275:6) appears to accept this view.

This halachah is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Shabbat 12b. The Ra'avad, Rashi, and others interpret that passage differently. The Rambam's perspective is followed by the Shulchan Orach (Orach Chayim 275:12), while the Ramah mentions that of Rashi.

I.e., although the attendant need not be prevented from checking the utensils by the light of the lamp if he does so on his own accord, if he asks whether it is proper to use the light of the lamp, he should be counseled against doing so.

Commenting on Shabbat 120b, Rabbenu Chanan'el interprets this as referring to a lamp fixed on the wall behind the door. Tosafot, by contrast, interprets this as referring to a lamp affixed on the door itself. Seemingly, the Rambam follows Rabbenu Chanan'el's view. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 277:1) mentions both opinions.

Shabbat (loc. cit.) explains that although one has no intention of extinguishing the flame (and thus one would not be held liable, as explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 5), in this instance, unless one opens the door carefully, there is a certainty that the light would be extinguished. Therefore, on the basis of Chapter 1, Halachah 6, opening the door in one's ordinary manner is forbidden.

One may, however, close a door in such a situation (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 277:2).

The Merkevat HaMishneh notes that the Rambam mentions the Sabbath in this clause and not in the first clause. The laws in the first clause also apply on the festivals, while the laws in the second clause apply only on the Sabbath.

Shabbat (loc. cit.) explains that this was a Rabbinic decree enacted lest one open a door when a strong wind is blowing.

Needless to say, the lamp must be placed there on Friday; on the Sabbath itself a lamp may not be moved.

This represents a contrast to the laws of the festivals. As mentioned in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:5, it is forbidden to make use of a tree on a festival, but it is permissible to move a lamp. Therefore, it is forbidden to place a lamp in a tree, lest one make use of the tree. Since moving a lamp on the Sabbath is forbidden, there is no need to worry that one will make use of the tree.

As obvious from the following halachah, the Rambam is referring to three series of blasts in which a teki'ah - a single long blast - a teru'ah - a series of short staccato blasts - and a final teki'ah were sounded. (See also Rashi, Shabbat 35b.)

When mentioning this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 256:1) states that it applies "when Israel dwelled in its land." The Ramah, however, suggests that when possible announcements should be made in Jewish communities of the diaspora to inform the people of the advent of the Sabbath. (Note the Or Sameach, who brings support for this practice from Avodah Zarah 70a.) Accordingly, it is customary for a Sabbath alarm to be sounded in many communities.

Rashi, Shabbat 35b, states that this practice was adopted lest the workers in the outlying areas be suspected of continuing their activities past the desired time.

As explained in Chapter 4.

As mentioned, it is customary at present to light candles 18 minutes before sunset.

The commentaries, beginning with the Maggid Mishneh, note a difficulty with the Rambam's statements, since his wording appears to indicate that, ab initio, it is acceptable to stick dough on the side of the oven to bake at this time, even though it will have to be peeled off on the Sabbath itself. As mentioned in Chapter 20, Halachah 1, peeling bread off an oven wall does not constitute a forbidden labor. It is, however, forbidden on the Sabbath on the basis of a Rabbinic prohibition. Note the resolutions offered to this difficulty in Chapter 3, Halachah 18.

(Significantly, the Hagahot Maimoniot and others interpret this as an indication that the Rambam allows forbidden labors to be performed after candle-lighting.)

It must be noted that Rav Kapach offers a different interpretation of the Rambam's words. He explains that the Rambam is not saying that one should actually roast a fish or bake dough. Instead, he is merely giving a measure of time.

One hour and fifteen minutes before sunset. This refers to sha'ot zemaniot, i.e., the term "hour" refers to one twelfth of the daytime period.

Eighteen minutes earlier.

This law is derived from the concluding Mishnah of the first chapter of Chulin. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, not all authorities agree that the shofar was sounded on Saturday night. Moreover, even with regard to the Rambam's intent, the commentaries are not in universal agreement. The Or Sameach, basing his statements on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin, loc. cit.), explains that the shofar was sounded only in the Temple and not in the Jewish community at large.

The Halichot Olam, by contrast, basing his statements on Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 7:5, maintains that the shofar was sounded at this time only in the community at large and not in the Temple.

According to the fixed calendar employed at present, Yom Kippur cannot fall on Friday or on Sunday. Nevertheless, when the calendar was established according to the testimony of witnesses, it was possible for the holiday to be celebrated on either of these days.

[In this context, note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Menachot 11:7, which emphasizes the potential for such a possibility, negating the opinion of prominent sages (apparently Rav Sa'adiah Gaon and Rabbenu Chanan'el), who maintained that the oral tradition prohibits Yom Kippur's being celebrated on either of these days (Rav Kapach).]

For it is forbidden to sound a shofar on the Sabbath or on Yom Kippur.

Havdalah is recited to mark the transition from holiness to the mundane, and this is not relevant on such an occasion (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Chulin, loc. cit.).

This applies not only to the recitation of havdalah over a cup of wine, but also the mention of havdalah in our Yom Kippur prayers.

This applies only in the Temple. Elsewhere, the shofar is not sounded on festivals.

For the festivals reflect a lower level of holiness than the Sabbath. Havdalah is recited both in our festival prayers and in our recitation of Kiddush.