Daf Ditty Beitzah 15:Reb Eliezer’s teaching method

1
2
3
MISHNA: With regard to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one may not cook on the
Festival with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. However, he may cook on that day for the
Festival itself, and if he left over any food, he left it over for Shabbat. The early Sages also
instituted an ordinance: The joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which the mishna explains.
One may prepare a cooked dish designated for Shabbat on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook
on the Festival for Shabbat.

4
The tanna’im disagreed with regard to the details of this ordinance: Beit Shammai say: For the
purpose of the joining of cooked foods one must prepare two cooked dishes, and Beit Hillel say:
One dish is sufficient. And they both agree with regard to a fish and the egg that is fried on it
that these are considered two dishes for this purpose.

5
If one ate the food prepared before the Festival as an eiruv and none of it remained for Shabbat,
or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. If he
left any part of the eiruv, he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat.

6
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source of the
halakha of the joining of cooked foods and of the halakha that one who failed to prepare such an
eiruv may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat? Shmuel said that the source is as the verse states:

.`‫ְמַלאְכֶתּ‬-‫ ְוָﬠִשׂיָת ָכּל‬,‫ח ֵשֶׁשׁת ָיִמים ַתֲּﬠֹבד‬ 8 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;
Ex 20:8

“Remember the Shabbat day, to keep it holy” from which he infers: Remember it and safeguard
it from another day that comes to make it forgotten. When a Festival occurs on Friday,
preoccupation with the Festival and the preparation and enjoyment of its meals could lead one to
overlook Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance to ensure that Shabbat will be
remembered even then.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this ordinance in particular to
ensure that Shabbat would not be overlooked? Rava said: The Sages did so in deference to
Shabbat, and they instituted an eiruv so that one will select a choice portion for Shabbat and a

7
choice portion for the Festival. If one fails to prepare a dish specifically for Shabbat before the
Festival, it could lead to failure to show the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

Rav Ashi stated a different reason: The Sages did so in deference to the Festival, so that people
will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat unless he began to bake the day before;
all the more so, one may not bake on a Festival for a weekday.

We learned in the mishna: One may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it to
cook for Shabbat. Granted, according to Rav Ashi, who said that the reason for an eiruv is so
that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat; that is why on a Festival
eve, yes, one may prepare the eiruv, but on the Festival itself, no, one may not do so, as it is a
reminder that in principle one may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat. However, according to
Rava, who stated that the reason for the eiruv is to ensure that one selects choice portions for both
the Festival and Shabbat, why does the mishna discuss specifically preparation on a Festival eve?
Even were one to prepare a dish for Shabbat on the Festival as well, it would guarantee that he
accord the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; that objective could have been achieved even on the
Festival. However, the Sages issued a decree that the eiruv must be prepared on the Festival eve
lest one be negligent and fail to prepare one entirely.

Summary

8
The rabbis are deeply immersed in a conversation about what we can send or bring as a gift on a
Festival.1 They discuss garments, including shoes of different colors and fabrics. It is interesting
to note that while we are told not to wear linen and wool together, many other combinations of
fabrics are permitted. Some thoughts about felt are shared: is this permitted? There is no sewing
involved! Just fibres mashed together by force. We learn that people may have worn felt insoles
for comfort. And the maintenance of both black shoes and white shoes was cumbersome. Spiked
shoes, those with nails, had caused a tragedy in the past - we learn that while hiding from anti-
Semites, one person tapped such a shoe and the sound created panic for it sounded like a group
approaching. Thus spiked sandals were forbidden, possibly just to keep the memory of that
experience alive.

We return to a discussion from Eiruvin where the rabbis whether found tefillin should be carried
on a Festival. They look to the days of the week to help determine whether or not a particular item
might be appropriate to send on a Festival. Weekdays are fine. The rabbis use this information to
round out their stories about a person who finds tefillin. We learn in Steinsaltz’ s notes that beit
sefarim were often built far from the centre of town. They were placed between towns to use the
funds of multiple communities and to draw more attendees.

Amud (b) also begins Perek II. A new Mishna tells us about that food for a Festival may be
prepared for that day; if the Festival falls on a Friday, we may prepare food for Shabbat on the

1
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/04/beitza-15-b.html

9
Festival. However, we must first create an eiruv tavshilin between the two days so that the food
can be thought of a one meal, carrying over from the Festival to Shabbat. Beit Shammai say that
this eiruv requires two dishes while Beit Hillel say that only one dish is required. We can eat what
is left over from the Festival on Shabbat, but the rabbis want to encourage people to prepare in
advance and so other restrictions are introduced.

The Gemara looks more carefully at the eiruv tavshilin . The word eiruv is meant in the form of
'connection' or 'continuation' rather than referring to a physical joining, like that of courtyards. The
rabbis note that Shabbat is to be held sacred; different from all other days. How can we treat
Shabbat with such disrespect? In response, the rabbis find proof texts that teach us to prepare our
food for Shabbat in advance of the day of rest.

We are told a fascinating story about Rabbi Eliezer the Great, who watched groups of students
leave as he lectured on the halachot of Festivals. As each group left, he became more angry and
called to the departing group that they must have a pittas, a barrel, a jug, a jar, a cup waiting for
them - they must be hungry and are compelled to leave. When the sixth group left, he told them
that only a curse was waiting for them as they did not value learning Torah over the call of
sustenance. Finally, the remaining students were afraid of Rabbi Eliezer. He reassured them,
giving them a blessing (including giving food to the poor) going forward to enjoy their meals.

Our Sages debate what is important in celebrating a Festival: devotion to G-d (through Torah
study) or physical pleasure (through eating and drinking). When Eliezer became upset, he was
adhering to the notion that his students were not devoting themselves completely to the pleasure
derived through study. Some rabbis agree that we should choose one of these two forms of
celebration on the Festivals. Others believe that we should give half of our celebration to G-d
(through Torah study) and half to ourselves (through eating and drinking). Although Eliezer was
stringent on these - and many other - points, he was famous for such opinions.

A note teaches us that the one or two most prominent families in each town would make the eiruv
itself. In so doing, people without enough to prepare for Shabbat would be able to enjoy their
Shabbat meal following the Festival. It was frowned upon to rely on such gestures,
however. People were expected to create their own eiruvin whenever possible.

As we are about to enter the Festival of Pesach and I will not be blogging for two nights, I am
pleased that the chag did not fall just before Shabbat this year so that I was able to avoid the degree
of planning discussed in today's daf.

10
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

When Yom Tov occurs on Friday, one cannot cook on Yom Tov primarily for Shabbos. Rather,
he can cook for Yom Tov and if there is food remaining, he can use it for Shabbos. One can prepare
a cooked food prior to Yom Tov and use this food for the purpose of cooking for Shabbos. Bais
Shammai maintains that the eruvei tavshilin must be two cooked foods, whereas Bais Hillel
maintains that one only requires one cooked food. Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel agree that fish
that was broiled with egg is deemed to be two dishes. If one ate the eruvei tavshilin or if it was lost
prior to the completion of preparing the Shabbos food, he cannot cook on Yom Tov primarily for
Shabbos. If any of the eruvei tavshilin remains, however, then he can rely on the eruv to cook on
Yom Tov for Shabbos.

The Chachamim found support for instituting eruvei tavshilin, a device that allows one to cook on
Yom Tov for Shabbos, from the verse that states remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it. We
learn from this that when Yom Tov occurs immediately prior to Shabbos, people may come to eat
so much food on Yom Tov that they will not leave anything over for Shabbos. The Chachamim
therefore instituted that one should make an eruvei tavshilin so that Shabbos will not be forgotten.
Rava maintains that eruvei tavshilin was instituted so that one will set aside a nice portion of food
for Shabbos and for Yom Tov. Rav Ashi maintains that eruvei tavshilin was instituted so that
people should say, “if we cannot bake on Yom Tov for Shabbos unless we began preparations
prior to Yom Tov, then certainly we are not permitted to bake at all on Yom Tov in preparation
for the weekday.” According to Rav Ashi, we understand the statement in our Mishnah that one
makes an eruvei tavshilin prior to Yom Tov and relies on it for Shabbos, because Rav Ashi
maintains that eruvei tavshilin was instituted so that people will say that they can only bake on
Yom Tov for Shabbos if they had prepared prior to Yom Tov. Thus, the eruvei tavshilin must be
made prior to Yom Tov and then one can cook and bake on Yom Tov, but if the eruvei tavshilin
was not made prior to Yom Tov, then the eruv will not be valid. According to Rava, however, who
maintains that the eruvei tavshilin was instituted so that one will set aside a nice portion of food
for Shabbos and for Yom Tov, one could really make the eruvei tavshilin on Yom Tov prior to the
meal, but because there was a concern that one may forget to make the eruvei tavshilin, the
Chachamim instituted that the eruvei tavshilin be made prior to Yom Tov.

Rabbi Eliezer was once sitting and teaching the laws of Yom Tov the entire Yom Tov day. In
middle of the lecture, one group of students left, and Rabbi Eliezer commented that those students
are owners of barrels, i.e. they are more interested in their wine than in Torah study. A second
group left and Rabbi Eliezer commented that they are the owners of kegs, which are smaller than
barrels. A third group left and Rabbi Eliezer commented that they are jug owners. A fourth group
left and Rabbi Eliezer commented that they own flasks. When the fifth group left, Rabbi Eliezer
commented that they are owners of cups. When the sixth group prepared to leave, Rabbi Eliezer
commented that they are desolate people. The remaining students then feared that Rabbi Eliezer
was angry with them also, so Rabbi Eliezer told them that he was only upset at those who had left
because they are leaving Torah study which is eternal life and they are involving themselves in
physical pleasures which is only temporary life. Upon ending his lecture, Rabbi Eliezer quoted the
verse that states go, eat fatty foods, and drink sweet drinks, and send food portions to those who

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Beitzah_15.pdf

11
have not prepared, for this day is holy to our lord; and do not be sad, for the joy of HaShem is your
strength.

Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one can either study Torah the entire Yom Tov day or one can eat
and drink all day, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that one should divide the day, and half of
it should be in the service of HaShem by studying Torah and half the day should be devoted to
eating and drinking.

The verse that states for the joy of HaShem is your strength means that HaShem says to the Jewish
People: “My sons, borrow on my account, and sanctify the holiness of the day, and trust in Me and
I will repay your debts.” This teaches us that if one cannot afford to pay for his Shabbos and Yom
Tov expenses, he should borrow and trust that HaShem will provide for him to repay what he has
borrowed.

One who wishes to have his fields protected should plant an eder tree, which denotes strength. The
reason for this is because the eder tree is a very precious tree and when word gets out that the
person owns this tree, everyone will become aware of the tree’s owner and it will be difficult for
someone to steal the field, as everyone knows who the real owner is. Alternatively, the tree is
referred to as idra in Aramaic which means something that endures for many generations. A
Baraisa states that a field that contains an eder tree will not be stolen nor taken by force, and its
fruits are protected.

To Study Torah or to Eat and Drink?

The Gemara states that Rabbi Eliezer was once sitting and teaching the laws of Yom Tov the entire
Yom Tov day. In middle of the lecture, one group of students left, and Rabbi Eliezer commented
that those students are owners of barrels, i.e. they are more interested in their wine than in Torah
study.

A second group left and Rabbi Eliezer commented that they are the owners of kegs, which are
smaller than barrels.

A third group left and Rabbi Eliezer commented that they are jug owners.

A fourth group left and Rabbi Eliezer commented that they own flasks.

When the fifth group left, Rabbi Eliezer commented that they are owners of cups.

When the sixth group prepared to leave, Rabbi Eliezer commented that they are desolate people.

The remaining students then feared that Rabbi Eliezer was angry with them also, so Rabbi Eliezer
told them that he was only upset at those who had left because they are leaving Torah study which
is eternal life and they are involving themselves in physical pleasures which is only temporary life.

12
The Gemara questions why Rabbi Eliezer was critical of the students who left if they were leaving
to provide for their physical needs which is a mitzvah of being joyous on Yom Tov. The Gemara
answers that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that rejoicing on Yom Tov is merely optional. The Gemara
cites a Baraisa where Rabbi Yehoshua rules that one should divide his time on Yom Tov. For half
the day one should rejoice with food and drink while the remaining half of the day one should be
involved in spiritual activities such as studying Torah and engaging in prayer. Rabbi Eliezer
maintains that one can either spend the entire day of Yom Tov rejoicing with food and drink or he
can engage in Torah study.

The Bircas Avraham wonders how Rabbi Eliezer declared that eating and drinking on Yom Tov
is deemed to be a temporary need when Rabbi Eliezer himself agrees that if one wishes to eat and
drink, he is fulfilling a mitzvah. The Bircas Avraham answers that the mitzvah of eating on Yom
Tov pales in comparison to the mitzvah of studying Torah on Yom Tov. Eating is considered
provisional in contrast to the mitzvah of studying Torah.

Rav Meir Bergman in Shaarei Orah (Parshas Mishpatim) adds that although the students were
feeling famished during the lecture, they were deserving of Rabbi Eliezer’s curse because they left
the Bais Medrash and gave the Bais Medrash the appearance of being empty. This teaches us how
careful one must be before making the decision to close a sefer that he is studying or before leaving
the Bais Medrash.

Escorting the Shabbos

The Gemara states that HaShem said to the Jewish People, “My sons, borrow on My account, and
sanctify the holiness of the day, and trust in Me and I will repay your loans.” We find that following
Shabbos, it is important for one to partake in a festive meal that is referred to as melaveh malka,
the escorting of the Queen. The word for escorting is levayah, which is the same word that is used
in the Gemara for borrowing. Essentially, HaShem is telling us, “cleave to Me and I will provide
you with your needs.” When one observes Shabbos and takes the Shabbos with him into the week,
he can be assured that HaShem will always provide for him.

HOW DOES AN ERUV TAVSHILIN PERMIT AN ISUR D'ORAISA

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Mishnah states that the Rabanan instituted the act of Eruv Tavshilin in order to permit cooking
on Yom Tov for Shabbos. The prohibition to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos, however, is a Torah
prohibition, as Rabah states earlier (2b; "Hachanah d'Rabah"). How can the rabbinical enactment
of Eruv Tavshilin remove the Isur d'Oraisa against preparing food on Yom Tov for Shabbos?
(TOSFOS 2b, DH v'Hayah)

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-015.htm

13
TOSFOS answers that although the Torah forbids cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos, the principle
of "Ho'il" removes that prohibition. "Ho'il" ("since") states that since guests might arrive on Yom
Tov, the potential host is permitted to cook for them on Yom Tov even if they do not end up
coming. It is considered as though he is cooking for Yom Tov and not for Shabbos. (In fact, Rabah
himself utilizes the principle of "Ho'il" in Pesachim (46b).) Even though the Isur d'Oraisa of
cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos does not apply because of "Ho'il," the Rabanan prohibited it lest
one think that he is permitted to cook on Yom Tov for an ordinary weekday. The enactment of
Eruv Tavshilin removes that prohibition.

However, according to Tosfos, since the allowance to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos is because
of "Ho'il," one should not be permitted to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos near the end of the day
on Yom Tov when there is not enough time for guests to arrive and to partake of the food. In such
a case the Isur d'Oraisa will remain and an Eruv Tavshilin will not be able to permit it.

TOSFOS here and in Eruvin (38a, in the name of the RITZBA) answers further that cooking a
food that already exists is not called Hachanah and is not forbidden mid'Oraisa. It is called
Hachanah only when a new product is created on Yom Tov that will be used on Shabbos (such as
an egg that was laid on Yom Tov). Cooking a food that already exists is prohibited only
mid'Rabanan, and thus the Eruv Tavshilin permits it.4

HOW TO EXPERIENCE SIMCHAS YOM TOV

Rebbi Eliezer was upset with his Talmidim who left the Shi'ur early on Yom Tov to go and eat.
He referred to the first group which left as those who have big vats set aside which they must eat.
He said that the second group which left had barrels, the third group had jugs, the fourth had flasks,
and the fifth had cups (that is, they had successively smaller vessels which hold smaller amounts
of food). When the sixth group left, he said, "Those people are cursed!"

If Rebbi Eliezer was less upset with each group which left, as implied by the appellations which
he ascribed to each one, then why did he express the most indignation at the last group and curse
them?

RASHI (DH Halalu) explains that aside from the Bitul Torah that the last group caused
themselves, they were also guilty of slighting the honor of the Torah by leaving the Shi'ur. Until
that point, there still remained a respectable number of Talmidim in the Shi'ur. After the sixth
group left, however, the number of students left in the Shi'ur became noticeably small.

The ARUCH (Erech "Pat") suggests a different approach. Rebbi Eliezer is the source of the
opinion (quoted later in the Gemara) that Yom Tov is a day designated either exclusively for one's
own personal pleasure or exclusively for Hash-m and for spiritual pursuits. The simple
understanding of this statement is that one may choose what type of activities to pursue on Yom

4
This is consistent with Rashi's interpretation of Hachanah (2b). Rashi repeatedly emphasizes that Hachanah prohibits an item that
was prepared b'Yedei Shamayim on Yom Tov for Shabbos. If it already existed but was processed by man on Yom Tov for Shabbos,
it is not prohibited because of Hachanah.

14
Tov and he is not required to split the day between the two pursuits, as Rebbi Yehoshua maintains.
Rebbi Eliezer was upset with his Talmidim because they were students of the Torah and for them
it was a far greater Mitzvah to spend Yom Tov immersed in learning Torah. To leave the Shi'ur in
order to partake in the Yom Tov meal would constitute Bitul Torah for them because they were
able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov through learning Torah. They did not need to eat
in order to experience Simchas Yom Tov.

The Aruch elucidates the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Eliezer maintained that one must focus
on one particular form of Simchas Yom Tov to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, one must
either learn Torah all day or eat and drink all day. (That is, one should not decrease the size of his
meal in order to be involved in spiritual pursuits such as learning Torah, and, similarly, one should
not decrease the time he learns Torah in order to be involved in a Yom Tov meal. When he finishes
his meal, or his studying, he certainly is permitted to involve himself in other pursuits.) One cannot
dedicate the day to both pursuits since he will not be able to do either one to its fullest extent.

When the first group of Talmidim left, Rebbi Eliezer commented that they must have had big vats
ready and waiting for them. He meant that they were doing nothing wrong by leaving the Shi'ur
early in order to partake in their Yom Tov meal. Those Talmidim chose not to spend the day
learning Torah because they wanted to focus all of their energies on experiencing Simchas Yom
Tov through involvement in the festive meal. As each successive group left, Rebbi Eliezer judged
them favorably and assumed that each group had a certain amount to eat, and that they left the
Shi'ur in order to utilize the remaining time to experience Simchas Yom Tov with the amount of
food that they had.

In contrast, when the sixth group left, Rebbi Eliezer reasoned that they will not have sufficient
time to eat a proper Se'udah for Yom Tov because it was so late already, and thus they will not
experience Simchas Yom Tov through the meal. On the other hand, since they were leaving the
Shi'ur early, they were losing the Simchas Yom Tov attained through total immersion in Torah
study. Since they had neither the Simchas Yom Tov of eating nor the Simchas Yom Tov of learning
Torah, Rebbi Eliezer said that they were cursed.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

Although it is common practice today to wear Tefillin just for the morning prayer service
of Shacharit, in the time of the Gemara it was commonplace for people to wear Tefillin throughout
the day. Nevertheless, there are times when wearing Tefillin is inappropriate – for example
on Shabbat and Yom Tov, or at night.

As a segue from the Mishnah‘s mention of carrying Tefillin on Yom Tov, our Gemara quotes
two halakhot about Tefillin:

1. If a person is wearing Tefillin while traveling and the sun sets, he should cover
the Tefillin with his hand until he arrives at home.

5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_1420/

15
 2. If a person is wearing Tefillin while studying in the Beit Midrash and Shabbat begins, he
should cover the Tefillin with his hand until he arrives at home.

Rashi explains that both cases are discussing scenarios in which Shabbat begins while the man is
wearing Tefillin. Tosafot and other rishonim point to the change in expression (the sun sets vs.
Shabbat begins) and argue that there are two distinct cases being discussed. In the first case, the
traveler finds that nightfall has arrived and he should not be wearing Tefillin; in the second case
the man studying finds that Shabbat has begun and that he should not be wearing Tefillin. Rabbeinu
Peretz defends Rashi’s reading of the Gemara by explaining that the traveler is outside and
immediately ascertains that it is dark, while the individual in the bet midrash may not realize that
the day has ended until much later.

The issue with regard to the beit midrash is, apparently, the fact that the study halls were often
situated outside of the city limits. We therefore find many situations in the Gemara where people
are afraid to leave the beit midrash at night without others accompanying them. It is possible that
the batei midrash were built in this way in order to divide the cost of the building and upkeep
between a number of communities, or to allow the residents of small, outlying villages to have
ready access to the study hall.

Although each of the festivals possess a facet of ‫ עצרת‬when we refrain from any ‫ מלאכה‬,it is the
holiday of Shavuos which is specifically referred to by the name ‫עצרת‬.6 What is the significance
of our calling the name of this holiday Chag HaAtzeres? The verse in Shir HaShirim (8:4) calls
out to the Jewish people not to provoke or to disturb love until the time is right. There is a classic
comment of Ramban on this verse in which he explains that there is a situation of Hashem's love
for us being desirable, and there is also the possibility that the moment may not linger.
Accordingly, when a person feels a certain moment of inspiration or if he feels particularly excited
in terms of his love or fear of Hashem, he should immediately do some mitzvah to actualize that
accomplishment. He could give some tzedakah, or sit down for a moment and learn some words
of Torah.

This charge which the person feels is known as "neshamah", and it is a spark of godliness sent
from the heavens to be utilized in the person's service of Hashem. Therefore, it is incumbent upon
the person to envelop that spirit with a physical and concrete manifestation (in this case, some
mitzvah activity) so that it can be strengthened and reinforced.

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Beitza%20015.pdf

16
Kedushas Levi explains at the moment of the giving of the Torah, there was a tremendous influx
of spiritual energy provided for Klal Yisrael, but they did not have the mitzvos available to contain
these forces. The only instructions they were given at that time were to cordon off the mountain,
not to touch the mountain and not to advance beyond specified boundaries.

Therefore, upon experiencing the uplifting opportunity of Sinai, the Jews directed their efforts to
fulfill that mitzvah itself, the mitzvah of “staying away - atzeres.” This mitzvah helped the nation
solidify their gains and actualize the benefits they had been offered. We celebrate this moment as
we fondly refer to one of the names of this holiday as Chag HaAtzeres. In this way, we
commemorate the gesture of our ancestors to capture the opportunity of spirituality which existed
by directing it to the mitzvah at hand.

Rav Ephraim Katz of Vilna (1), the author of Teshuvas Shaar Ephraim, writes based on our Gemara
that a person is considered negligent if he bears an obligation and when the time came to fulfill
that obligation he forgot.

Rav Yaakov Reisher (2), the Shvus Yaakov, challenges this assertion from the Gemara Shabbos.
The Gemara there discusses many instances of a person who forgot that it was Shabbos and
performed a melachah during that period of forgetfulness. This person is treated as one who is a
‫ —שוגג‬an inadvertent violator, rather than a ‫—פושע‬one who is negligent.

Therefore, Shvus Yaakov writes that in our Gemara the one who forgets is considered negligent
only because he forgot due to laziness. If, however, the person forgot under normal conditions he
is not considered negligent. Shulchan Aruch (3) writes that if a person missed davening because
he thought he had more time to finish his current activity and it turned out that he miscalculated,
he is considered a ‫שוגג‬and can make up the missing prayer.
Rav Moshe Sofer (4), the Chasam Sofer, also examined this issue and created the following
guidelines. If a person has a responsibility to perform a mitzvah and he lazily assumes that he has
more time and in the end runs out of time he is considered lazy and would not, for example, be
permitted to make a missed tefilla.

On the other hand, if the person forgets something other than a mitzvah obligation, e.g. a person
placed a rock in his lap and forgot about its presence and when he stood up it fell and damaged
someone else’s property, he is exempt because it is considered an ‫ אונס‬.

17
On our daf, we find the principle that one may rely on Hashem to cover the debts incurred by
performing the mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov. As Hashem reassures us through the words of the
prophet Nechemiah (8:10): “Rejoicing in God is your stronghold”—“Borrow on My account,
believe in Me, and I will repay.” We are guaranteed that bitachon will prove a stronghold of
spiritual and financial security.

One of the major avodos of Rav Yosef Yoizel Horowitz, zt”l, the Alter of Novaradok, was
bitachon. When asked about how he had managed to build and maintain seventy yeshivos in early
communist Russia against such terrible odds, he would say, “Everything I achieved was only in
the merit of bitachon.”

On many occasions, the yeshiva lacked even the most basic necessities. It was precisely at such
times that the bitachon of the Alter saw them through. One year , there was no money at all before
Pesach for the holiday expenses. Two days before Yom Tov there was literally not a penny to
cover any of the many debts. New suits had been sewn by tailors, but were waiting in the shops
until they were paid for. Orders for matzos, wine, and all of the food needed for the festival were
being held in abeyance until a donor could be found. Everyone was worried about the mounting
costs and the total lack of funds…except for the Alter.

On that second-to-last day, in deference to his yearly custom, a wealthy donor sent exquisite
candles by messenger to the Alter’s house to be used at the seder table. When the Rebbetzin saw
the expensive candles arrive at a time when there weren’t even matzos to be had, she naturally
burst into tears. Rav Yosef Yoizel seemed completely undisturbed, however, and went off to the
yeshiva for his usual sedarim. The following day, on Erev Pesach itself, an unsolicited donation
arrived by wire. And it covered all of the yeshiva’s expenses!”

18
 A different kind of eruv.

RABBI JEREMY ROSEN WRITES:7

Mishnah Megillah 1:5 nicely sums up a major theme of this tractate:

The only difference between Shabbat and a festival is human sustenance.

All laws from the Torah and rabbis apply equally to both Shabbat and festivals except for preparing
food. On festivals, the laws may be bent to allow food preparation — to increase the joy of the
festival.

Today’s page deals with a very specific question: What if a festival falls the day before Shabbat?
May one use the cooking exemption of the festival to prepare food for Shabbat? This is what the
mishnah on today’s page of Beitzah addresses:

When a festival occurs on a Friday (Shabbat eve), one may not cook on the festival with
the intent to cook for Shabbat. However, one may cook for the festival itself, and if there is
leftover food, one may eat it on Shabbat. One may prepare a cooked dish for Shabbat on the eve
of the festival and rely on it for Shabbat.

If Shabbat follows a festival, one might be tempted to cook for Shabbat on the festival because
cooking, after all, is permitted on that day (and not on Shabbat). However, this is not allowed.
Food that is cooked on a festival should be cooked purely for the purpose of enjoying it on that
festival — and not for the sake of eating on Shabbat.

As is so often the case, though, intent matters. If you cook food on a festival that you intend to eat
on that festival, but happen to have some leftovers, those may be eaten the next day on Shabbat.
Because the food was cooked for the festival, nothing improper has gone into its preparation.

So no, one may not plan to “accidentally” over-cook on a festival. Which leaves us with the
question: If Shabbat immediately follows a festival, what should you do about food on Shabbat?
The answer is that you must prepare your Shabbat food on the eve of the festival — or at least you
must begin to. This food cooked two days before Shabbat is called eruv tavshilin.

The rabbis understand that the dish cooked two days before Shabbat, the eruv tavshilin, will not
constitute all the food eaten on Shabbat, but can then be mixed with food prepared on the festival
for Shabbat and it will be as if all the food was prepared ahead of the festival for Shabbat. In the
mishnah, Hillel and Shammai debate the minimal amount of food that can be used for this purpose:

7
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/beitzah-15/

19
Beit Shammai say two dishes. Beit Hillel say one dish. And they agree that a fish with an egg
on it counts as two dishes.

The eruv, as those who joined us for Tractate Eruvin may remember, is a fascinating
rabbinicdevice.The word literally means to merge or mix — one area into another (the theme of
Tractate Eruvin) or one day into another. In this case, the eruv tavshilin is a bit of food that is
mixed with other food to create the legal fiction that the food for Shabbat was not cooked on a
festival.

There are several other and better-known examples of eruv. The Torah forbids leaving one’s
habitation on the Shabbat ( Exodus 12:22 ), but the rabbis decided that this was too restrictive and
so they created the eruv hazerot, “mixing courtyards,” to theoretically merge private properties
and enable neighbors to carry into each other’s homes. The eruv techumin is another example that
enables people to walk beyond the city bounds on a Shabbat, as forbidden by the Torah. All of this
was to make the festival or Shabbat an enjoyable experience without sacrificing the principles of
the Torah. Of course, it helped that people lived in closed communities or small settlements. But
the device is now used to enable observant Jews carrying across large cities.

Likewise, eruv tavshilin makes it possible to do a little cooking for Shabbat on a festival that comes
immediately before, easing the burden of managing two adjacent sacred times.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

It is Erev Yom Kippur, and I am looking at our daf (Beitzah 15b) which informs us that what we
learn from the words ‫‘ – זכור את יום השבת‬remember the Shabbat day’ (Shemot 20:8) is that we
should be sure to remember Shabbat ‫‘ – מאחר שבא להשכיחו‬when a risk exists that we may forget it’.
I am then thinking about the other things that the Torah lists that we are expected to remember -
but that we also often forget. The redemption of Am Yisrael by God from Egypt - and the need to
provide support for those in need of physical, spiritual and emotional redemption (Devarim 16:3).
The dangers of assimilation and destruction from physical and spiritual threats - and the need to
protect ourselves and our people from both (Devarim 25:17). The receiving of the Torah and its
function as a spiritual and moral compass for our life (Devarim 4:9). The intellectual and spiritual
threat of idolatry in all its forms (Devarim 9:7). And the harm that harsh words can have on others
including those closest to us (Devarim 24:9).

Significantly, this list of six things – otherwise known as the ‫( שש זכירות‬the six remembrances) –
is accompanied by a series of actions (i.e. mitzvot) that we are required to fulfil to ensure that we
don’t forget these crucial lessons. In terms of Shabbat, this includes the actions we are required to
do throughout the week so we don’t come to shabbat unprepared. In terms of the Egypt experience,
this includes the Seder. In terms of the need to protect ourselves from physical and spiritual harm,
this includes the annual reading of the Amalek portion. In terms of Torah, this includes our daily
recitation of the Birkot HaTorah (the Blessings on the Torah) and daily study of Torah. And in
terms of idolatry, this includes the prohibitions against making certain sculptures and images.

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

20
Yet while many books exist about the negative impact of harsh words and lashon hara, and
notwithstanding the fact that the Torah contains the story of Miriam and other stories relating to
lashon hara, we seemingly have few – if any - formalized rituals to remind ourselves of the harm
that harsh words can have on others including those closest to us. Unfortunately, what this means
is that we live with a constant risk that we may forget this important fact.

But then we come to Yom Kippur which is the culmination of the 40-day period when Moshe used
his words to God in order to protect and defend Am Yisrael, and the culmination of a stretch of
time during which we have recited selichot. And what do we say, repeatedly, both in the selichot
and during Yom Kippur?

We review those traits that God told Moshe to speak out and reflect upon – those 13 Attributes of
Mercy – where we refer to God as being compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant
in lovingkindness. And by using our mouths to speak out and reflect upon these attributes of mercy,
our intention is to give ourselves both chizuk (encouragement) and mussar (ethical instruction) to
direct our words and our deeds to live a life overflowing with kindness, consideration, compassion,
graciousness, slowness to anger and abundance in lovingkindness.

Ultimately, Yom Kippur is the day when we remind ourselves of the important things that we often
forget, and in particular, how our words can impact others – for the good and the bad. It is the day
we need so we don’t forget, which sadly too many of us do. So let’s use it well! Wishing you all a
meaningful Yom Kippur.

Shmuel Herzfeld writes:9

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who was sitting and
lecturing about the halakhot of the Festival throughout the entire Festival day.

When the first group left in the middle of his lecture, he said: These must be owners of extremely
large jugs [pittasin], who apparently have huge containers of wine awaiting them as well as a
comparable amount of food, and they have left the house of study out of a craving for their food.
After a while a second group departed. He said: These are owners of barrels, which are smaller
than pittasin. Later a third group took its leave, and he said: These are owners of jugs, even smaller
than barrels. A fourth group left, and he said: These are owners of jars [laginin], which are smaller
than jugs.

Upon the departure of a fifth group, he said: These are owners of cups, which are smaller still.
When a sixth group began to leave, he became upset that the house of study (Beit Midrash) was
being left almost completely empty and said: These are owners of a curse. He cast his eyes upon
the students remaining in the house of study. Immediately, their faces began to change color out
of shame, as they feared he was referring to them and that perhaps they should have departed along
with the others instead of staying.

9
https://images.shulcloud.com/1219/uploads/Shuvasources5762.pdf

21
He said to them: My sons, I did not say that about you but about those who left, because they
abandon the eternal life of Torah and engage in the temporary life of eating. At the time of the
remaining students’ departure at the conclusion of Rabbi Eliezer’s lecture, he said to them the
verse: “Go your way, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing
is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your
strength” (Nehemiah 8:10).

This story is difficult to understand and many points require clarification. One major point to
clarify is the meaning of the phrase: “He cast his eyes upon the students remaining in the house
of study.”

Rashi understands the story to mean that the students who remained in the Beit Midrash interpreted
their teacher’s expression as one of deep disappointment in their behavior. If their rebbe became
so upset with the sixth group for being so late to leave for their holiday meal, for sure he would be
upset with them for leaving even later! This interpretation implies that Rabbi Eliezer was not upset
at the students for leaving, but for taking so long to leave! In response, Rabbi Eliezer reassures his
students that he is not upset at them but at the other students who left and thereby forsook eternal
life for the sake of fleeting pleasures.

Rav Yitzchak Abuhav argues that this is a difficult explanation. For how can the students have
thought that their teacher would be upset at them for staying and studying Torah. Should they have
left him to teach to an empty classroom? Therefore, Maharsha offers an alternative explanation of
the sequence of events. Maharsha suggests that the students assumed that Rabbi Eliezer “placed
his eyes upon them” because he also suspected them of wanting to leave the class. However, they
misunderstood his eyes. Really, he had “placed his eyes” upon them with great love because they
had stayed in his class to study Torah while the other students had left.

Does one have to eat on a Holiday?

Mark Kerzner writes:10

If the Holiday (Yom Tov) is followed by Shabbat, then people who are celebrating the Yom Tov
may completely forget about Shabbat, and finish all the provisions and drinks, coming to Shabbat
with nothing to eat. In order that this should not happen, the Sages instituted a reminder in the
form of "food mix," or "eruvei tavshilin." This food eruv is prepared before the Yom Tov, by
taking some foods in one's hand and declaring "with this eruv (which I will eat on Shabbat) it
becomes permitted to me to cook on a Yom Tov for the needs of Shabbat." Normally cooking on
a Yom Tov for Shabbat is forbidden, but with this eruv this, too, becomes allowed.

Once Rabbi Eliezer was giving a lecture about the laws of Yom Tov, the whole day of Yom Tov.

10
https://talmudilluminated.com/beitzah/beitzah15.html

22
A group of students arose and left, and Rabbi Eliezer commented, "They must have prepared
barrels of wine, and are rushing to drink it." When the second group left, he said, "They have
casks of wine." When the sixth group left, he said, "These are desolate people." Some students,
however, remained till the conclusion, and to them he said, "Go and eat rich food, drink sweet
beverages, and do not be melancholy."

Why was Rabbi Eliezer so strict with his students? After all, there is a mitzvah to eat and drink
and be merry on a Yom Tov? - He disagrees with this requirement: all the time that one is engaged
in Torah study, it takes preference, and only when he stops - then the obligation to eat and drink
devolves on him.

How to Celebrate Yom Tov

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:11

We live in an age of specialization. Whether it is business, medicine, sports, Torah, or technology,

we train people to be expert in one small area, so that people today know increasing amounts about
less and less. Trying to do too many things will often result in none being done particularly well.

Apparently, this notion has Talmudic roots, at least as it relates to the celebration of Yom Tov.
"Rabbi Eliezer says: A person on Yom Tov has only[1] to eat and drink, or to sit and learn. Rabbi
Yehoshua says: Divide it, half for G-d and half for you" (Beitza 15b). Rabbi Yehoshua's view is
most understandable. Yom Tov is a joyous time, celebrating G-d's special relationship with the
Jewish people. We must dedicate half the day to G-d in prayer and study, singing songs of praise
and thanksgiving, and deepening our understanding of the encounter between G-d and man
through the study of Torah. At the same time, we are flesh and blood, and "there is no joy except
with meat...and wine (Pesachim 109a)". This idea fits beautifully with the Jewish notion that
holiness is best demonstrated by the elevation and sanctification of physical life. Eating and
drinking, and prayer and study are differing methods of worshipping G-d.

However, Rabbi Eliezer had a very different view of Yom Tov. "The joy of Yom Tov [through
eating and drinking] is optional" (Beitzah 15b). One who desires good food and drink should
"party" away, and one who finds joy through study should study all day long. But to do both will
do justice to neither. People at a party are in no mood to hear a shiur, and those who are engrossed
in study have neither the time nor the patience to spend a few hours at a meal. By giving people
the option of celebrating Yom Tov in a manner of their choosing, the Jewish people, as a whole,
will celebrate Yom Tov "half to man and half (well, maybe less than half) to G-d".

11
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/beitza-15-how-to-celebrate-yom-tov

23
While Rabbi Eliezer gives one the option of how to celebrate, his preference is quite clear. "Our
Rabbis taught: One time, Rabbi Eliezer was sitting and teaching the laws of Yom Tov all day long.
When the first group left, he said 'they are the owners of big barrels'" (ibid). As Rashi explains,
those who left the lecture so early must have lots of food waiting for them in their "barrels", and
thus needed more time to eat. As each of the next four groups walked out of the shiur (there really
is nothing new under the sun), Rabbi Eliezer commented on the decreasing size of the food bins
they must have had. As a sixth group got up to leave, Rabbi Eliezer said, "They are to be
cursed". With so few people remaining at the shiur, those who left were even more noticeable,
leaving the study hall practically empty (Rashi). "He put his eyes on his students (i.e., he glared at
them), and their faces began to change. He said to them, 'Children, it is not to you I speak, but to
those who have left, who abandon eternal life and are involved in temporal life'. As is often the
case, one is forced to rebuke those who need it least--because those who need it most ensure that
they never hear it [2].

The language "who abandon eternal life and are involved in temporal life" is that used by Rabbi
Shimon bar Yochai in defence of his view that one should eschew involvement in the physical
world, dedicating one's life only to spiritual pursuits. As for sustenance, "their work will be done
by others" (Brachot 35b). After spending twelve years in a cave, he emerged; and upon seeing one
involved in farming he lamented that they "abandon eternal life and are involved in temporal life".
G-d castigated him, telling him He did not sustain him to destroy the world, and sent him back for
another year to "decompress" (Shabbat 33b).

Normative law rejects the view of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in favor of the more moderate view
of Rabbi Yishmael that one should combine work and study. "Many did like Rabbi Yishmael and
succeeded, and many did like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and did not succeed". So, too, Jewish law
rejects the view of Rabbi Eliezer, accepting the more balanced approach of Rabbi Yehoshua.

But as is often the case when our Sages present radically different worldviews, the rejected view
maintains a place in our tradition. It may be appropriate for some and reflect important notions for
all, even if it is not meant to be fully implemented. While many who did like Rabbi Shimon bar
Yochai did not succeed, a select few did.

The Gemara notes that both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer were working from the same
biblical texts. "And the two of them, one text they explicated. One verse says a 'convocation unto
the Lord your G-d' (Devarim 16:8) and one verse says 'a convocation it should be for
you' (Bamidbar 29:35)". The Torah deliberately described Yom Tov in contradictory
fashion[3], enabling our Sages to develop different approaches to the observance of Yom Tov.
While in practice, Jewish law rules like Rabbi Yehoshua that we are to "divide it, half to G-d and

24
half to you", the view of Rabbi Eliezer helps mold our view of the nature of Yom Tov as a day
dedicated to strengthening our relationship with G-d. Chag Sameach!
[1] As is clear from the context of the Gemara, Rabbi Eliezer does not mean one should fast, or even not have a Yom Tov meal.
Rather, the overarching focus should be on learning (or eating).

[2] The Maharsha quotes a fascinating explanation that Rabbi Eliezer's anger was due to the fact that this later group did not observe
Yom Tov properly according to either view. By leaving the shiur early they were not learning all day. And by staying in the shiur
for as long as they did, delaying the meal, they failed to properly observe the "half for yourself". Rabbi Eliezer then addressed those
who remained after this sixth group left.

[3] This is one of the most important--and often neglected--principles in the study of Tanach. As we say every day in "Rabbi
Yishmael omer", the Torah is full of contradictions; and when not contradictory, much of the Torah is ambiguous. These features
allow, encourage, and demand that we study our texts with a multiplicity of approaches. We will have to leave for another time
elaboration of this important subject (see here for a short piece I wrote addressing this subject).

Zakhor Et Yom Ha-Shabbat Le-kadsho

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:12

The description of Shabbat contained in parashat Yitro begins with the phrase 'Zakhor' which
literally means to remember. From this word, Chazal develop the mitzva of kiddush - "Remember"
or mention the day of Shabbat over a cup of wine. This halakha, though, is somewhat distant
from the literal meaning of the word - to remember. Is there an additional normative practice
which can be derived from this word?

The Rashbam - noted for his literal reading of and commentary to the Torah - reminds us that
'zakhor' connotes remembering the PAST. According to the Rashbam, this pasuk merely
encourages us to remember God's having created the world. This we do by resisting from work
on the 7th day. It does not entail any new practical halakha and obligates no new action. Rather,
it focuses our attention on the accepted "experiential" purpose of Shabbat - to remember beriat ha-
olam.

The Ibn Ezra disagrees with the Rashbam and bases his comments upon the
Mekhilta. According to R. Yitzchak, the word zakhor demands that we establish a 'counting
system' which revolves around Shabbat. By naming the days of the week based upon their
proximity to Shabbat we count 'le-shem Shabbat.' Based on this opinion, the Ibn Ezra claims that

12
https://torah.etzion.org.il/en/zakhor-et-yom-ha-shabbat-le-kadsho

25
in order to prevent forgetting when Shabbat will occur, we should count the days of the week based
on their offset from Shabbat. The Ibn Ezra draws his explanation from the Mekhilta and possibly
from a related halakha attached to the pasuk of zakhor by the gemara in Beitza.

Our daf Beitza (15b) raises a similar issue regarding the ceremony of eiruv tavshilin. Searching
for a biblical source for the mitzva, the gemara suggests the pasuk of zakhor - remember Shabbat
in situations in which you might easily overlook it. After all, a Shabbat which follows a joyful
chag might be 'overlooked.' To guard against this possible emotional letdown, we pre-empt Yom
Tov with the start of Shabbat. We symbolically begin the preparation of the Shabbat meal on
EREV Yom Tov to highlight the singular significance of Shabbat. The gemara derives this
exercise from the concept of zakhor - remember, the gemara claims, because there are instances in
which you might forget. This derivation, as well, might have served as the basis for the Ibn Ezra's
explanation. Zakhor rallies against forgetting Shabbat. Shabbat can be forgotten in exceptional
circumstances just as it can be neglected by the daily routine. In each context, we must take
appropriate steps to remember Shabbat.

An interesting question can be posed regarding the Ibn Ezra's stance: Is his counting scheme
merely practical, in order to insure against forgetting the actual Shabbat? Or might this practice
be seen as ceremonial: by establishing a Shabbat-centric counting strategy we, in effect, honor
Shabbat every day of the week. Though the Ibn Ezra specifically mentions the danger of
forgetting, the primary source - the Mekhilta - did not invoke this "practical" concern.

The third basic approach to the word zakhor can be found in Rashi's comments to parashat Yitro
- comments which again have their source in earlier texts. The gemara in Beitza (16a) cites the
famous dispute between Shammai and Hillel. The former would reserve his finest food for
Shabbat. If, during the week, he encountered a tasty or superior type of food, he would designate
it for Shabbat use. Hillel differed and claimed "Barukh Hashem Yom Yom" - a person should
enjoy that day's opportunities and praise God each day of his life. Though the gemara does not
cite a source for Shammai's conduct, the parallel section in the Mekhilta invokes the verse of
zakhor as the basis for this behavior. Based on the gemara and the Mekhilta, Rashi interprets the
verse according to Shammai.

One might question Shammai's position in the same manner that the Ibn Ezra's was examined
earlier. Is this conduct driven by practical considerations? By reserving delicious food

26
encountered during the week, a person secures a festive and enjoyable Shabbat experience. Or do
we view this conduct as ceremonial rather than "facilitative"? By setting aside food, a person
maintains a Shabbat consciousness during his entire week. After all, the language which the
gemara employs to describe Shammai's conduct is very telling: Shammai used to eat the entire
week li-kavod Shabbat - to honor Shabbat. He wasn't merely occupied in early preparations for
Shabbat. Rather, he used his eating habits and meal planning as an opportunity to honor Shabbat
during the entire week. This might be similar to counting the days of the week based on their
proximity to Shabbat. The pasuk of zakhor creates an obligation to invest the entire week with the
spirit of Shabbat. According to the Ibn Ezra this is accomplished by one's counting scheme, and
according to Shammai, by one's meal plans.

One possible consequence of this understanding of Shammai might be the scope of his
halakha. Though the gemara and the Mekhilta cite his behavior regarding foodstuffs, the Mekhilta
De-Rashbi (a variant edition of the Mekhilta authored by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai) mentions
Shammai's conduct in conjunction with utensils. If he discovered a stylish utensil, he would
reserve it for Shabbat use. Had Shammai's motives been purely practical, we might question this
conduct regarding utensils. After all, unlike food, they are reusable. Why not enjoy during the
week AND RE-USE on Shabbat? Evidently, Shammai, by dedicating items, intended to honor
Shabbat. This he accomplished by deferring their use exclusively for Shabbat.

Does Shammai's opinion receive halakhic validation? Indeed, the Shulchan Arukh rules
according to Hillel and our weekly conduct reflects that ruling. Would it still be preferable to
adopt Shammai's behavior if possible? The Taz (242;1) cites an Or Zarua which indicates the
preference - if possible- for Shammai's strategy. One might say that Rashi by quoting Shammai's
position might be suggesting that although halakha doesn't obligate Shammai's conduct, it certainly
prefers it.

It is interesting to consider whether Hillel didn't REQUIRE Shammai's stern position or in fact
DISAGREED with it. On the one hand, the stance presents few drawbacks. By preparing so far
in advance for Shabbat, a person might very well guarantee the Shabbat experience. Hillel might
not have demanded so severe an orientation, even though, theoretically, it is
preferable. Alternatively, Hillel might have OPPOSED this behavior which, though assuring the
Shabbat experience, demonstrates an insecurity in God's provision of food for Shabbat. By
exclaiming "Barukh Hashem Yom Yom" - we should celebrate that which God has given us each

27
day and, as Rashi comments - trust that He will continue to provide, an individual affirms his belief
in Providence. This is an affirmation which might supersede technical concerns of food for
Shabbat.

AFTERWORD:

1) The Ramban (in his commentary to parashat Yitro) comments both upon the word zakhor and the end of the phrase le-

kadsho. Indeed, we are asked to remember God's having created the world. Experientially our acknowledgment of His presence is

best accomplished by studying on Shabbat (visiting a navi in biblical times or a Rebbi today), and this constitutes le-kadsho, literally

to sanctify the day.

Eiruv Tavshilin
Rav David Brofsky writes:13

Introduction
Last week, we discussed the prohibition of cooking on Yom Tov for the next day. We
learned that Rabba and R. Chisda (Pesachim 46b) debate whether one who cooks on Yom Tov for
the following day receives lashes (R. Chisda) or not (Rabba). Rabba maintains that since (ho’il)
visitors may unexpectedly appear on Yom Tov and eat the food one prepared for the next day, all
cooking performed on Yom Tov may, mi-deoraita, be viewed as cooking for Yom Tov. Even
Rabba, however, agrees that mi-derabbanan, one may not cook on Yom Tov for the following day.

The gemara explains that although R. Chisda rejects the principle of ho’il and prohibits
cooking on Yom Tov for the next day, he agrees that mi-deoraita, one may cook on Yom Tov for
Shabbat, as “the Shabbat needs may be prepared on a Festival.” Even this, however, is
prohibited mi-derabbanan.

We noted that the gemara presents two exceptions to this prohibition. First, the
Talmud (Beitza 17a) teaches that “a woman may fill the whole pot with meat, although she only
needs one portion.” The gemara permits adding food to one’s pot, even if the extra food isn’t
needed on Yom Tov. Second, the gemara also teaches that one who prepares an eiruv
tavshilin before Yom Tov may cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat. This week, we will discuss the
purpose and laws of the eiruv tavshilin, and how and when it permits one to cook on Yom Tov for
Shabbat.

Cooking for Shabbat- Eiruv Tavshilin

13
https://torah.etzion.org.il/en/cooking-yom-tov-next-day-2eruv-tavshilin

28
 The mishna (Beitza 15b) teaches that “[If] a festival fell on the eve of Shabbat… he may
prepare a dish on the eve of the festival and rely upon it [to prepare food] for the Shabbat.” One
who prepares and designates a dish before Shabbat may then continue to prepare for Shabbat on
the Festival. This method is called eiruv tavshilin.

The gemara records a dispute regarding the reason for this enactment:

Whence do we know this? Shmuel said: Because Scripture says, “Remember the Sabbath
day to keep it holy” - remember it in view of another Festival which comes to make it
forgotten. What is the reason [for the institution of the eiruv]? Said Rava: In order that
he may choose a fine portion for the Shabbat and a fine portion for the Festival. R. Ashi
said: So that people might say: You may not bake on a Festival for the Shabbat – how
much the more [is it forbidden] on a Festival for a weekday!

Rava and R. Ashi disagree as to whether the eiruv tavshilin, which permits the rabbinic prohibition
of cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbat, protects the honor of the festival (R. Ashi), by reminding one
that one may not cook on Yom Tov for the next day, or the honor of Shabbat, by ensuring that a
person adequately prepares for Shabbat (Rava).

R. Zerachiya Ha-Levi (1125-1186), the Ba’al Ha-Ma’or (Pesachim 14b), suggests that this
debate may be related to the previously mentioned dispute regarding the permissibility of cooking
on Yom Tov for the following day. Rava (the Ba’al Ha-Ma’or insists that this is, in fact, Rabba)
accepts the principle of ho’il, and therefore, mi-deoraita, one may cook from Yom Tov to the
following day. The rabbis, however, prohibited cooking on Yom Tov for the next day, but feared
that one may thus not properly prepare for Shabbat. They therefore permitted cooking for Shabbat
through the mechanism of eiruv tavshilin. R. Chisda, on the other hand, who ruled that cooking
on Yom Tov for the following weekday is forbidden mi-deoraita, maintained that the Rabbis feared
that one who cooks for Shabbat, as “the Shabbat needs may be prepared on a Festival,” may
mistakenly believe that one may also cook for a weekday. They therefore required an eiruv
tavshilin to correct this false impression.

R. Betzalel Zolti (1920-1982), former chief rabbi of Jerusalem suggests in his Mishnat
Ya’avetz (36) that this discussion may relate to another debate regarding the origin of the term
“eiruv tavshilin.” The Rishonim offer different interpretations of the phrase “eiruv tavshilin.” The
Rambam, for example, writes:

Why is this called an eiruv? [Because it creates a distinction.] The eiruv that is
established in courtyards and lanes on the day before Shabbat is intended to create a
distinction – so that people will not think that it is permitted to transfer articles from one
domain to another on Shabbat. Similarly, this portion of food creates a distinction and
a reminder, so that people do not think that it is permitted to bake food on a holiday that
will not be eaten on that day. Therefore, the portion of food is referred to as an eiruv
tavshilin. (Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:2)

29
The Rambam maintains that the term “eiruv” is borrowed from the halakha of eiruv chatzerot: just
as an eiruv chatzerot creates a distinction that reminds people that they may not carry from one
domain to another on Shabbat, the eiruv tavshilin is also a distinction or reminder.

The Ra’avad disagrees, insisting that the term “eiruv” is not borrowed, but rather describes
how one “mixes (eiruv) the needs of Shabbat with the needs of Yom Tov together.” Or as the Ritva
explains, “They called it an ‘eiruv’ because it is as if he combines Yom Tov and Shabbat,
combining them and making them into one sanctity, as if when he prepares for Shabbat it is as if
he prepares for Yom Tov” (Beitza 15b, s.v. ve-oseh).

R. Zolti explains that the Rambam follows the opinion of R. Chisda, who believes that
although one may cook mi-deoraita on Yom Tov for Shabbat, one may not cook for a weekday.
The eiruv tavshilin therefore serves as a “reminder” that one may generally not cook on Yom
Tov for the next day. The Ra’avad, however, follows the reasoning of Rabba, who views one who
cooks on Yom Tov for the next day as actually cooking for the purposes of Yom Tov because of the
principle of ho’il. By beginning one’s preparations for Shabbat early by preparing an eiruv
tavshilin, one “mixes” or “combines” Yom Tov and Shabbat preparations. One who cooks for
Shabbat is therefore viewed as if he is cooking for Yom Tov.

The Rishonim suggest practical differences between the two reasons for an eiruv tavshilin.
The Rosh (2:1), for example, writes that according to Rava, who believes that the eiruv tavshilin is
intended to ensure that one properly prepares for Shabbat, the eiruv must be prepared immediately
before the festival that precedes Shabbat. According to R. Ashi, however, who maintains that
the eiruv protects the integrity of Yom Tov, one may prepare the eiruv tavshilin even long
before Yom Tov. In fact, he writes that one may make an eiruv tavshilin on the Wednesday before
the first Yom Tov of Sukkot, which will suffice for the second Yom Tov (Shemini Atzeret)/Shabbat
as well, as long as he says so explicitly. The Hagahot Maimoniyot (Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:2) cites the
Ra’avya, who apparently agrees with the Rosh’s explication of R. Ashi, but adds that one may not
make one eiruv tavshilin for the entire year. The Beit Yosef (527), however, insists that the Rosh,
as well as the Tur (527), would maintain that as long as the eiruv still exists, one may rely upon it
for the entire year! The Kol Bo (59) cites Rabbeinu Netanel, who disagrees and maintains that one
may only prepare the eiruv tavshilin on erev Yom Tov, as implied by the mishna and gemara.

The Shulchan Arukh (527:14) rules that one should preferably not rely upon the Rosh, but
should rather prepare a new eiruv for each Yom Tov that precedes Shabbat.

The Mordekhai (671) raises another possible difference between the opinions of Rava and
R. Ashi. He relates that R. Shmuel of Bunberg once ruled that one who forgot to prepare the eiruv
tavshilin before Yom Tov may make an eiruv on Friday, Yom Tov Sheini, before Shabbat. He
reasons that one may rely upon Rava, the more lenient opinion, who maintained that
the eiruv ensures that one properly prepares for Shabbat. This would not be permitted according
to R. Ashi.

R. Yosef Karo rejects this possibility in his Beit Yosef and does not cite it in the Shulchan
Arukh. Incidentally, R. Yechezkel Landau (1713-1793) suggests in his commentary to the Talmud,
the Tzelach (Beitza 15b), that even R. Ashi accepts Rava’s reason. Thus, even if the halakha is in

30
accordance with R. Ashi, on Yom Tov Sheini, when R. Ashi’s reason of ensuring proper respect
for Yom Tov is no longer relevant, one may rely upon Rava and make an eiruv tavshilin in order
to properly prepare for Shabbat.

What is the Eiruv tavshilin?

The mishna (Beitza 15b) cites a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding
whether the eiruv tavshilin must consist of one or two food dishes.

[If] a festival fell on the eve of Shabbat, one may not at the outset cook on the festival
for Shabbat, but he may cook for the festival, and if any is left over it remains for
Shabbat; and he may prepare a dish on the eve of the festival and rely upon it [to prepare
food] for Shabbat. Beit Shammai say: two dishes [are required for this purpose], while
Beit Hillel say: one dish.

This mishna clearly implies that according to Beit Hillel, one must only prepare one dish for
the eiruv. However, the gemara elaborates:

Now a Tanna deduces it from the following: “Bake that which you will bake, and cook
that which you will cook” (Shemot 16:23) - from this R. Eliezer concluded [that] you
may bake only [in dependence] upon what is [already] baked and you may cook only [in
dependence] upon what is [already] cooked.

This passage implies that one who wishes to cook and bake must prepare two dishes, one cooked
and one baked.

The Rishonim differ as to how to interpret this gemara. Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer Ha-Yashar,
Chiddushim 392; see also Tosafot, Beitza 17b, s.v. amar and Siddur Rashi 619) rules that one who
wishes to bake must also prepare a baked item for the eiruv. Most Rishonim (Rif, Responsa 312;
Rambam, Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:3; Ramban, Milchamot 8a; Ran 10a, s.v. amar Rava), however,
disagree, and rule that the eiruv consists of one cooked food alone. Tosafot cites the Ri, Rabbeinu
Tam’s nephew, who remarked that “I cannot bring myself to violate the words of my uncle; rather,
one should prepare two dishes, one cooked and one baked, and the halakha is in accordance with
him.”

Here too, R. Zolti suggests that this debate may relate to a more fundamental debate. If
the eiruv tavshilin merely comes to serve as a reminder, then one dish would certainly suffice.
However, if the eiruv constitutes the beginning of one’s preparations for Shabbat, then assuming
that cooking and baking are viewed as separate forms of preparation, we might suggest that one
must begin each form of preparation (cooking and baking) before Yom Tov in order to continue
those activities on Yom Tov.

The Shulchan Arukh (527:2) rules that one should preferably prepare both a cooked and
baked food, although if one only prepared a cooked food, that is sufficient.

The gemara also relates to the size of the eiruv tavshilin. The gemara (16b) teaches:

31
 R. Abba said: An eiruv tavshilin must be the size of a kezyit (olive). They asked: [Does
that mean] one kezyit for all [the participants together] or a kezayit for each one
separately? Come and hear: For R. Abba said in the name of Rav: An eiruv
tavshilin must be the size of a kezayit, whether for one or for one hundred.

Although the Shulchan Arukh cites this passage (527:3), the Rema relates that some, based upon
the Talmud Yerushalmi, require that one prepare a ke-beitza of bread. He records that this is the
custom.

Finally, the eiruv must remain intact in order for one to enable one to cook or bake for
Shabbat. The mishna (Beitza 15b) teaches that, “[If] he ate it or it was lost, he may not rely upon
it, but if he left over any [small] portion of it, he may rely on it [to cook] for the Sabbath.”

It is customary to prepare a challah and a cooked dish as one’s eiruv tavshilin. The Arukh
Ha-Shulchan (527:13) notes that when Yom Tov falls out on Thursday and Friday and the eiruv
tavshilin must be prepared on Wednesday, the cooked dish may spoil before Shabbat, thereby
disqualifying the eiruv tavshilin. Therefore, he writes, one should use a hardboiled egg, which will
not spoil before Shabbat. Although nowadays food can be stored in a refrigerator, many are still
accustomed to set aside a cooked egg as one’s eiruv tavshilin.

One should not eat the eiruv tavshilin until all of the preparations for Shabbat have been
completed, preferably, as we shall see, including the hadlakat neirot. Therefore, one should not
eat the eiruv until Friday night. R. Shlomo Luria (Maharshal, Beitza 2:18) relates that the
Maharam of Rutenberg would eat the eiruv tavshilin at the third meal of Shabbat.

What Does an Eiruv Tavshilin Permit?

Which ordinarily prohibited preparations does the eiruv tavshilin permit?
Tosafot (Beitza 22a, s.v. u-madlikin) writes that when one recites the eiruv tavshilin formula
(“with this eiruv, let it be permitted for us to bake, cook…”), one must add “u-le-adlukei” (“and
to light candles”). In addition, he explains that one who does not prepare an eiruv tavshilin may
not light more than one candle. The Rosh (2:16) and Ran (Rif 11a, s.v. u-midamrinan) concur. The
Mordekhai (Beitza 672), however, seems to disagree, as he notes that the Yerushalmi only requires
one to mention baking and cooking, implying that one may light without an eiruv tavshilin.
Similarly, neither the Rif nor the Rambam (Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:8) mention lighting in their texts
of eiruv tavshilin.

The Shulchan Arukh (527:19) cites two opinions regarding whether one who did not
prepare an eiruv may light a candle for Shabbat. It is customary to mention lighting in the formula
of the eiruv tavshilin.

The authorities debate whether an eiruv tavshilin permits melakhot performed for Shabbat
needs unrelated to food. For example, may one carry a machzor to synagogue on Friday that one
intends to use on Shabbat? Furthermore, may one engage in preparations for Shabbat that do not
involve a melakha? For example, may one wash dishes on Friday to be used on Shabbat? May one

32
roll the sefer Torah to the proper place for the Shabbat reading? May one make beds and set the
table for Shabbat? It is customary to permit these preparations for Shabbat. (The Magen Avraham
[528:2 and 667:2], citing the Ran [Rif 9a, s.v. tanu rabannan], implies that only actions necessary
for the Shabbat meals are permitted. The Or Zaru’a [Hilkhot Yom Tov 343:7] and R. Akiva Eiger
[comments on Magen Avraham] insist that any action that may potentially provide benefit on
Shabbat is permitted by the eiruv tavshilin. See also Chazon Ovadia, Hilkhot Yom Tov, p. 302.)

The Shulchan Arukh (527:13) rules that the eiruv tavshilin only permits one to prepare for
Shabbat on Friday, but not on Thursday, of Yom Tov.

One Who Forgets To Prepare an Eiruv Tavshilin

The Talmud (Beitza 17a) rules regarding one who did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin:

He who has not set an eiruv tavshilin may neither bake nor cook … neither for himself
nor for others; nor may others bake or cook for him.

The gemara offers, however, a number of suggestions for one who forgot to make an eiruv
tavshilin. We will briefly discuss a number of them.

One Who Remembers Before Sunset

One who forgot to prepare an eiruv tavshilin and has already left for synagogue should
preferably return home to make the eiruv. If this is impossible, one may call home and ask someone
at home to make the eiruv. If this too is impossible, R. Yisrael Lipschitzý (1782-1860) writes in
his commentary to the mishna, Tiferet Yisrael (Beitza 2:1):

In my humble opinion, if he has bread and a cooked item in his home he may, in the beit
midrash, say, “The bread and the cooked food that I will take when I return home should
from this moment be designated as an eiruv tavshilin.” And although this person has
many loaves of bread and many cooked dishes in his house, regarding laws of Rabbinic
origin we apply the principle of “bereira” - and when he returns home he will separate
a loaf of bread and a cooked item and set them aside for Shabbat.

Although some Acharonim disagree (see, for example, Maharsham 2:36), others rule that in
extenuating circumstances, one may rely upon the Tiferet Yisrael (see Minchat Yitzchak 7:36),
but one should not recite the blessing in this case.

Tenai (Condition)

The gemara (Beitza 17a) discusses that possibility of establishing an eiruv tavshilin on the
first day of Yom Tov, which falls out on Thursday, instead of the day before. This, of course, is
only relevant outside of Israel.

Rava said: A man may prepare an eiruv tavshilin on the first day of a Festival for the
second and stipulate.

33
Rashi (s.v. mi-yom) explains that one would say: “If today is a weekday and tomorrow is a festival,
then my eiruv should be an eiruv. If, however, the opposite is true, then I do not need an eiruv at
all.”

The Rishonim discuss when and how this condition may be made. For example the Ran
(Rif 9b) cites Rabbeinu Efraim, who insists that one may make a condition only if there is food
prepared from the day before. The Tur (527) and Bach disagree. Furthermore, the Sefer Ha-Ittur
(cited by Tur 527) notes that this condition would certainly not apply to Rosh Ha-Shana, which
the gemara (Beitza 6b) describes as “one long day.”

The Rambam (Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:14-15) raises an interesting question. He rules that
nowadays, when we do not really observe the second day of Yom Tov out of doubt, but rather
because of the established custom, one may not make this condition on the first day of Yom Tov.
The Ra’avad disagrees.

The Shulchan Arukh (627:22) rules that one who forgets to make an eiruv tavshilin may
prepare one on the first day of Yom Tov and recite the standard text of the eiruv, adding the
condition mentioned above. The Mishna Berura (74) cites a debate among
the Acharonim regarding whether one should recite the blessing over this eiruv. Furthermore, the
Shulchan Arukh also cites the dispute regarding whether one must have food prepared form the
previous day. The Mishna Berura (75) rules in accordance with the Tur – even one who did not
begin cooking the day before may prepare this eiruv.

Relying on the Rabbi’s Eiruv

The Talmud also discusses the possibility of relying upon someone else’s eiruv.
The gemara (Beitza 16b) teaches the Rabbinic authority of the city should prepare an eiruv
tavshilin for the inhabitants of the city who do not prepare their own.

Come and hear: For the father of Shmuel used to set the eiruv for the whole of
Nehardea; R. Ammi and R. Assi used to set the eiruv for the whole of Tiberias. R. Yaakov
ben Idi proclaimed: He who has not set an eiruv tavshilin, let him come and rely upon
mine.

In addition, the gemara implies that not everyone may rely upon this eiruv.

There was a certain blind man who used to recite beraitot in the presence of Mar
Shmuel. When he noticed that he was gloomy, he asked him: Why are you gloomy? He
replied: Because I have not set an eiruv tavshilin. Then rely upon mine, he rejoined.
The following year, he [again] noticed that he was gloomy. He said to him: Why are you
gloomy? He answered him: Because I have not set all eiruv tavshilin. [Then] said he to
him: You are a transgressor – to everyone else it is permitted, but to you it is forbidden.

34
This passage implies that one who is a “transgressor” (poshe’a), who in this context forgot to
prepare an eiruv tavshilin twice, may not rely upon the eiruv tavshilin prepared by the head of the
city.

Some Rishonim (see Rambam, Hilkhot Yom Tov 6, for example) do not cite this passage,
and apparently maintain that one may always rely upon another person’s eiruv prepared for him.
Other Rishonim disagree, but differ as to how to understand this passage. The Rosh (2:2), for
example, explains that each person should prepare his own eiruv tavshilin, and one may not
intentionally rely upon the eiruv prepared by the local rabbi. One who intentionally fails to prepare
his own eiruv and intends to rely upon the rabbi’s eiruv is considered to be a transgressor, and he
may not rely upon the eiruv. Furthermore, the Korban Netanel (7) explains, based on the gemara,
that one who forgets to prepare an eiruv a second time may no longer rely upon the rabbi’s eiruv.

The Beit Yosef (527) writes that according to Rashi (s.v. le-didach; Ran 9a, s.v. ha-hu),
the person who prepares the eiruv for the inhabitants of the city does not have transgressors in
mind. If, however, he were to have in mind those who intentionally do not prepare an eiruv,
the eiruv would indeed work (see Rashba, Responsa 1:583). The Arukh Ha-Shulchan (16)
maintains that even the Rosh would agree that, theoretically, if the rabbis had the “transgressor”
in mind, the eiruv tavshilin would work for him as well.

The Shulchan Arukh (527:7) rules:

It is incumbent upon every individual to prepare an eiruv. It is also incumbent upon the
prominent figure in the city to prepare [the eiruv] for all the inhabitants of his city, in
order [to help] one who forgot, or was unable [to prepare an eiruv], or one who prepared
and eiruv but it was lost (and also for the ignorant who do not know that that must make
an eiruv). However, one who is able to prepare an eiruv and does not, but rather wished
to rely upon the eiruv of the prominent figure in the city, is considered to be a
transgressor and may not rely upon it.

The Acharonim disagree as to who is considered a “transgressor” and may therefore not rely upon
someone else’s eiruv tavshilin. Some Acharonim insist that one who forgot to prepare
an eiruv twice is considered to be a “transgressor.” The Kaf Ha-Chayyim (48; see also Mishna
Berura 22) writes that only one who forgets to prepare an eiruv tavshilin for two consecutive
festivals is considered to be a “transgressor.” The Chayyei Adam (102:6), however, writes that one
who forgets to prepare an eiruv tavshilin twice in general may not rely upon the rabbi’s eiruv
tavshilin. The Arukh Ha-Shulchan (18) argues that nowadays, the rabbis has in mind even one who
consistently forgets to prepare an eiruv tavshilin. In fact, he suggests that Mar Shmuel may have
only referred to the specific person in the anecdote cited in the gemara, who should have known
better and whose forgetting surely expressed negligence. The Mishna Berura (26) suggests that be-
diavad, in order to ensure simchat Yom Tov, one may rely upon those opinions that permit one to
rely upon the rabbi’s eiruv.

The person who prepares an eiruv for others must have them in mind when making
the eiruv. In addition, when preparing an eiruv for others, someone must “acquire” the eiruv for
them. The person acquiring on their behalf lifts the eiruv at least a tefach above the ground, and

35
the person making the eiruv takes it from him and recites the blessing “al mitzvat eiruv,” followed
by the formula recited over the eiruv tavshilin, adding “for us and for all of the inhabitants of this
city.” Preferably, one’s family member or wife should not acquire this eiruv on behalf of the
community, as discussed elsewhere by the Shulchan Arukh (366:10; see Mishna Berura 34, who
rules that if an adult from another family is not available, one’s wife or children may make the
acquisition).

We have seen two options for one who forgot to prepare an eiruv tavshilin: preparing
an eiruv conditionally on the first day of Yom Tov (only applicable outside of Israel) and relying
upon the Rabbi’s eiruv. In addition, as we saw last week, when cooking for the Friday
morning Yom Tov meal, one may simply cook a larger amount – in one pot – than one actually
needs. If this final option proves unsatisfactory, the Acharonim (see, for example, Birkei Yosef
527:10 and Kaf Ha-Chayyim 527:35, 41) discuss whether one should preferably rely upon the
rabbi’s eiruv or make one’s own on the first day of Yom Tov.

Must one’s children or guests prepare a separate eiruv tavshilin? R. Avraham David
Wahrman of Buczacz (1770-1840) writes in his Eshel Avraham (527:7) that although one may not
rely upon another’s eiruv tavshilin, the head of the household prepares the eiruv tavshilin for all
those who are eating his food. Therefore, one’s children and guests need not prepare an eiruv
tavshilin.

What about a family who eats all of their Yom Tov meals at another person’s house but
sleeps in their own home, or a family staying at a hotel? Must they prepare their own eiruv
tavshilin?

R. Mordechai Karmi (1749-1825) discusses whether one who has no intention to cook or
bake for Shabbat must make an eiruv tavshilin in his commentary to the Shulchan Arukh, Ma’amar
Mordekhai (527:16). He claims that this question depends upon whether one may light candles for
Shabbat without preparing an eiruv, as we discussed above. As this is subject to debate, he
concludes that one should prepare the eiruv and recite the formula, but should not recite the
blessing due to the principle of safek berakhot le-hakel (when in doubt whether to recite a blessing,
one should refrain from doing so).

R. Menashe Klein (b.1925), in his Responsa Mishneh Halakhot (7:74), discusses whether
a married couple who eats all of the Shabbat meals at their parents’ should prepare an eiruv. He
concludes that if they sleep at their parents’ home, it is customary to rely upon their parents’ eiruv,
but if they sleep in their own home, they should prepare an eiruv without reciting the blessing. He
bases this conclusion, in part, upon, the Ma’amar Mordekhai cited above. Similarly, R. Ovadia
Yosef (Chazon Ovadya, Hilkhot Yom Tov, p. 278) and R. Bentzion Abba Shaul (1924-1998; Or
Le-Tziyon vol. 3, 22:6), also conclude that one should preferably prepare an eiruv without a
blessing in order to permit one to light candles for Shabbat (see also Minchat Yitzchak 7:36 and
Iggerot Moshe O.C. 5:20:26).

Making the Eiruv Tavshilin

36
 One who makes an eiruv tavshilin holds both a baked and cooked food, prepared
before Yom Tov, and recites the blessing of “al mitzvat eiruv.” He then recites the formula, “With
this eiruv, let it be permitted for us to bake, cook, insulate, light candles, make preparations, and
do all of our needs on Yom Tov for Shabbat.” Although the text is traditionally recited in Aramaic,
one who does not understand the text should say it in a language he understands (Rema 527:12).

Accounting For Shabbos

Rabbi Yair Hoffman writes:14

There are men who know that if they fail to bring home Binah or Mishpacha Magazine for
Shabbos or yom tov, well, they may as well not come home. This is particularly true for a three-
day yom tov. This year there are a number of three-day yom tovs, so the problem is particularly
acute.

This, hopefully, is an exaggeration, but it does give rise to the following halachic question.
The Gemara (Beitzah 15b) tells us that money we spend for Shabbos is excluded from the
predetermined sum we are destined to make that year. In other words, Hashem covers our Shabbos
expenditures.

The Gemara previously (Beitzah 12a) uses the expression “Borrow on My account and I shall
pay–lavu allai v’ani porei’a.” Hashem covers these expenses and He underwrites the costs.

But what does this exemption include? Does it include the cost of
purchasing Mishpacha Magazine, for example, if we do so for Shabbos enjoyment? (The Five
Towns Jewish Times is distributed at no charge, so the question does not apply to this publication.)

The Stringent View

14
http://www.5tjt.com/accounting-for-shabbos/

37
Rav Meir Brandsdorfer, zt’l, a dayan of the Eidah HaChareidis, in his Knei Bosem (Vol. III #13)
writes explicitly that only food and drink are included. He cites as proof that the verse in the eighth
chapter of Nechemia only mentions food and drink, and this verse is the source of the entire ruling.
It seems then that the Mishpacha would not be included–at least according to the Knei Bosem.

A More Encompassing View

The Shitah Mekubetzes (Beitzah 15b) cites the Ritva’s view that all expenditures for mitzvos are
included within this exemption. In other words, according to the Ritva, you get back any money
that you spend on any mitzvah. The Gemara itself extends the exemption to expenses for talmud
Torah for one’s children and also rosh chodesh as well. Perhaps this might give precedent to be
more inclusive of the Shabbos expenditures that are exempt.

Rabbi Daniel Kleinman posed the question to Rav Shmuel

Kamenetsky, shlita (Koveitz Halachos Shabbos Vol. page 11) as to whether purchases that one
may consume on Shabbos but are not necessarily so are included in hotza’os Shabbos. Rav
Kamenetsky responded that they are. Excessive or luxurious purchases, however, would not be
included unless the person is on a remarkably high level of bitachon–a level that is not to be found
in modern times.

Rav Kamenetsky further told him that hotza’os Shabbos include the cost one spends on electricity,
water, and also Shabbos vessels and dishes. Even if he were to purchase a new suit for Shabbos
and he planned on wearing it to a wedding as well, it would be considered a “deductible” expense.
The one caveat is that the central reason for his purchase must be for Shabbos.

This author, however, would like to suggest that we can infer from
the Gemara in Bava Kamma (9a), which says that hiddur mitzvah is only to one-third,
that mitzvah items such as an esrog box would not be a fully deductible expense. This would

38
indicate that the concept of hotza’os Shabbos and yom tov is limited to food and drink. However,
the Ritva would also have had to understand the Gemara in Bava Kamma.

Rav Elyashiv’s View

Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, seems to have a more nuanced view. The Shvus Yitzchak (section on electricity,
19:1) cites a ruling from Rav Elyashiv that the concept only includes tzorchei Shabbos and not
luxuries. The Aruch HaShulchan (Orech Chaim 250:4) writes quite clearly, however, that
purchasing more meat and wine are included in the expense exemption. Perhaps the contradiction
could be resolved by assuming that only in regard to extra meat and wine do we say that they fit
into the definition of tzorchei Shabbos–the needs of Shabbos.

Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, was asked (Vayishma Moshe p. 95) whether the costs of a generator are
included in hotza’os Shabbos. He responded that they are because it is a necessity. He was further
asked whether this included the cost of a generator to cool or heat up the home. Rav Elyashiv
responded that it was only for lighting, but not for heating or air-conditioning. He was further
asked if that applies to those people who almost absolutely require air-conditioning. Rav Elyashiv
answered that for them it would be included.

Rav Yehoshua ben Alexander HaKohen Falk, (1555—1614) in his Prisha (OC 242:14)
commentary on Shulchan Aruch, clearly indicates that there is a difference between food, which
is covered, and vessels and other items, which are not covered.

Other Issues

Rav Nissim Karelitz, shlita, in his Chut Sheini (Vol. I, pp. 46—48) writes that expenses for the
Shabbos eiruv would also be exempted. Rav Karelitz also deals with the issue of purchasing from
a more expensive store. He concludes that if it is within the person’s general budgetary means,

39
then the more expensive local store is exempt, but if it is beyond what he would normally do, then
it would not be included. He adds the caveat that even if it is within his means, it is only exempt
if it would interfere with the person’s Shabbos preparations. [This author had posed this very
question to Rav Shlomo Goren, ob’m, the chief rabbi of Israel in the 1980s, and received the same
answer.]

We can also perhaps see this idea from Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto’s explanation in
his Mesillas Yesharim, chapter 9. He writes that Rav Nachman would contemplate what he would
do according to his means to honor another person. The operative term is “according to his means.”

On another note, Rav Chaim Kanievsky was asked (see Ohr L’Yaakov page 72) whether the
exemption included guests who would have their own food to eat had they not been invited. He
responded that these expenditures are also exempt.

What Yamim Tovim are Included?

Rav Chaim Kanievsky ruled that Chanukah and Purim expenses are not part of the exemption
(She’eilas Rav Vol. I p. 29). The costs for erev Yom Kippur meals, in this author’s opinion, would
be included. By the same token, it would also seem to include the costs for the second day
of yom tov in chutz la’aretz. What about someone who lives in Eretz Yisrael paying for the
second-day yom tov meals of an American? This is a good question.

Expressing It Verbally

The Mishnah Berurah (252:2) writes that for whatever one purchases for Shabbos, it is worthwhile
to verbally express, “I am purchasing this for the honor of Shabbos.”
The Machatzis HaShekel explains that through the verbalized words, the holiness of Shabbos will
enter into the item itself.

40
Conclusions

It seems to this author that there is a debate among the poskim as to whether the purchase of a
beloved magazine is included within the concept of hotza’os Shabbos expenditures. According to
the Prisha, the Knei Bosem, and Rav Elyashiv, they are not included. If you want them, they must
come out of your own money–not the free expenses that Hashem gives to you. According to Rav
Shmuel Kamenetsky, shlita, if they are truly purchased l’kavod Shabbos, then they would be
included.

Rabbi Eliezer vs. Rabbi Akiva: Two Models of Torah

Rabbi Dov Linzer writes:15

The seventh chapter of Sanhedrin ends with a powerful aggadata:

When R. Eliezer fell sick, R. Akiva and his companions went to visit him…

The Sages, seeing that his mind was clear, entered his chamber and sat down at a distance of four
cubits.

‘Why have ye come?’ said he to them.

‘To study the Torah’, they replied;
‘And why did ye not come before
now’, he asked?
They answered, ‘We had no time’…

He then put his two arms over his heart, and bewailed them, saying, ‘Woe to you, two arms of
mine, that have been like two Scrolls of the Law that are wrapped up. Much Torah have I
studied, and much have I taught. Much Torah have I learnt, yet have I but skimmed from (lit.,
made lacking from) the knowledge of my teachers as much as a dog lapping from the sea. Much
Torah have I taught, yet my disciples have only drawn from me (lit., made lacking from me) as
much as a painting stick from its tube.

Moreover, I have studied three hundred laws on the subject of a deep bright spot of tzara’at, yet
no man has ever asked me about them. Moreover, I have studied three hundred (or, as others
state, three thousand) laws about the planting of cucumbers [by magic] and no man, excepting
Akiva b. Joseph, ever questioned me thereon…”

15
https://library.yctorah.org/2010/04/rabbi-eliezer-vs-rabbi-akiva-two-models-of-torah/

41
His visitors then asked him, ‘What is the law of a ball, a shoemaker’s form , an amulet, a leather
bag containing pearls, and a small weight?’ He replied, ‘They can become impure, and if
impure, they are restored to their purity in their current state.’ Then they asked him, ‘What of a
shoe that is on the form?’ He replied, ‘It is pure;’ and his soul departed in purity.

Then R. Joshua arose and exclaimed, ‘The vow is annulled, the vow is annulled!’

On the conclusion of the Sabbath R. Akiva met his bier being carried from Caesarea to Lydda. [In
his grief] he beat his flesh until the blood flowed down upon the earth – Then R. Akiva commenced
his funeral address, the mourners being lined up about the coffin, and said: “‘My father, my father,
the chariot of Israel and the horsemen’ I have many coins, but no moneychanger to inspect them.”

This aggadata tells the story of R. Eliezer’s death and is the companion piece to the story of R.
Eliezer and the oven of Aknai in Baba Metzia 59b. In that well-known story, R. Eliezer declared
that such an oven was pure – i.e., not susceptible to impurity – the other rabbis disagreed, and –
refusing to be swayed by the majority, called upon the walls of the beit midrash to bend in, the
river to run backwards, and finally a heavenly voice to demonstrate that he was correct. The rabbis,
however, overruled all of these, declaring “It is not in heaven” (Deut 30:12) and that once given
to humans, Torah and halakha are to be decided based on majority vote. Because R. Eliezer refused
to accept the majority rule, they impurified everything that he had declared pure, and they put him
in nidduy (a minor form of excommunication).

Our story picks up many years later, with his students – including R. Akiva – visiting him on his
death bed. They could not sit within 4 amot of him, since he was still in nidduy, and it was only
after his death that they removed the nidduy and were able to participate in his funeral. It seems
that the Torah they asked him about on his death bed, was specifically chosen, because – just like
the oven of Aknai – it was an issue of tumah vi’taharah, of purity and impurity, and it was an issue
that the majority of rabbis had disagreed with him. They wanted to see if he had changed his ways,
and if he would submit to the opinion of the majority. R. Eliezer, however, stood by his position,
and reiterated his previous rulings. Although they could thus not remove the nidduy in his life,
after his death, they were able to reframe it, stating “his sole departed in purity” – a play on words,
indicating that he died with the word “pure” on his lips – declaring the shoe under discussion to
be pure – but also with a purity of spirit, not willing to compromise his halakhic position and his
intellectual integrity because of the ruling of the majority. After his death, when he was no longer
a threat to the rabbinic consensus and its authority, a positive aspect of his approach could be subtly
acknowledged and the nidduy could be removed.

So, at one level, what is going on here is the conflict of personal intellectual integrity, on the one
side, and submission to the majority rule and rabbinic authority on the other. But there is another
conflict present here as well, and it is one of two different approaches to Torah she’b’al Peh, to
the Oral Torah. Rebbe Eliezer is praised in Pirkei Avot as a “plastered well which does not lose a
drop.” (Avot 2:8), and he is known for never rendering an opinion on a matter that he did not here
a ruling on from his teachers (Negaim 9:10; 11:7, Yoma 66b). Rebbe Eliezer ‘s approach to Torah
she’b’al Peh was that of mesorah, tradition – it was the retaining (without losing a drop!) of all
the teachings of the previous generation and the passing it on to the next. It was not about creativity
or new discoveries; it was about retention and transmission.

42
In contrast, Rabbi Akiva is known to have derived “piles and piles of laws from every title and jot
of each letter of the Torah” (Menachot 29b). And when Moshe Rabbenu was allowed to sit in R.
Akiva’s beit midrash, he was distressed that he couldn’t understand what R. Akiva was teaching,
until his mind was put to rest when R. Akiva declared that his source for his ruling was a “halakha
li’Moshe mi’Sinai“, a law given to Moshe at Sinai” (ibid.). This is a quite different from of Torah
she’b’al Peh – it is one of creativity and derivation, of discovery and application, it is one that can
begin with the Torah given to Moshe at Sinai, but develop to a series of laws that even Moshe was
not able to understand. Even the phrase “halakha li’Moshe mi’Sinai,” which is the classic phrase
for a law that was directly issued and directly handed down, is here given new meaning.

A passage from Avot DiRebbe Natan illustrates these different approaches (Chapter 6, version A):

He (R. Akiva) learned the aleph bet. He learned Torat Kohanim. He continued learning until he
had learned the entire Torah. He went and he sat before R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, and he said
to them, “My masters, explain for me the reason of the mishna.” When they told him one law, he
went and sat by himself and said, “Why is this aleph written? Why is this bet written? Why was
this thing said? He went and asked them and he established for them the matter.

R. Shimon ben Elazar said: I will give you a parable.

It is like a person who was hewing a mountain. One day, he took his hammer, and was at the
mountain, chopping little rocks, and people came and said: “What are you doing?” He said: “I
am going to uproot the mountain and cast it into the Jordan River.” They said to him: “You can’t
uproot an entire mountain!”

He continued hewing until he reached a large rock, he entered into the underneath it, destroyed it
and removed it, and through it into the Jordan, and he said, “this is not your place, but that is.”

So Rabbi Akiva did to R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua.

R. Tarfon said to him, “Akiva, regarding you the verse states: “He dams up the sources of the
springs so that hidden things may be brought to
light.” (Iyyov 28:11).

For R. Akiva, nothing is to be taken for granted. Nothing is just a fact to pass down. Everything,
even the aleph and the bet, must be questioned, and when he goes to R. Eliezer (and R. Yehoshua)
to ask for a reason, they can only teach him another law. He had to remove himself from them,
and sit by himself, to do the questioning and analysis that he needed to do, and then it was he who
became their teacher. He was the one who understood that learning is not just facts, it is a deeper
understanding that leads to the reorganization of the facts, and that brings hidden things to light.

This was R. Akiva, but this was not R. Eliezer, for whom Torah was what was passed down straight
from Sinai. For him, human involvement could only sully the message. We now understand why
R. Eliezer refused to submit to the majority rule. He knew that he had the facts as they were given
at Sinai. No majority could change that reality. Torah was an absolute truth that would bend to
nothing and to no one. The Torah would not bend to the world. Quite the opposite – it was the

43
world that must bend to the Torah. Let the walls of the beit midrash bend to the truth. Let the truth
reverse the course of the river. “Let the truth pierce through the mountain.” (a statement attributed
in Tosefta Sanhedrin 1:3 and in Sanhedrin 6b to R. Eliezer ben R. Yossi, but in Yevamot 92a to
our R. Eliezer [ben Hurkonus]!) This was the approach of R. Eliezer. It was an approach that could
not accept “It is not in heaven” – that the Torah that was given by God should be decided by a
majority vote of human beings. There were not 70 faces to the Torah – there was only 1 Torah,
and everything else must give way.

R. Eliezer had to be put in nidduy. This type of a Torah could not exist in the real world, could not
exist in a community. Torah had to be interpreted by human beings and in the context of the real
world and of society.

When R. Akiva and the other rabbis came to visit him on his death bed, and he asked them why
they had not come earlier to learn Torah, they replied, “We have been busy.” This was not a lie.
Although R. Eliezer was in nidduy, it would have been permissible to learn Torah from him (Moed
Katan 15a, Shulkhan Arukh YD 334:12), as they did at this sitting. But they had been busy – busy
doing what rabbis do – learning Torah – but a different Torah than R. Eliezer had to teach. They
were learning the Torah of R. Akiva, the Torah of analysis and discovery, and they did not have
time for a learning that was just the receiving of a myriad of facts.

Consider how R. Eliezer describes the Torah he has to give – 300 laws regarding one spot of
leprosy, 300 (or 3,000!) laws about the magical planting of cucumbers. R. Akiva and his colleagues
had no interest in learning all these facts – “no one ever asked me about them.” If they needed to
determine something regarding leprosy – a field that R. Akiva was known for – they would have
derived the laws they needed to know. They did not need to spend their time amassing millions of
obscure and esoteric details.

When R. Eliezer describes how he learned from his masters and how his students learned from
him, he uses the metaphor of giving and taking water – the transfer of a static quantity of stuff.
And he states that “I did not take away from them (my teachers) except a like a dog laps from a
sea,” and uses the same verb – “take away” in describing what his students received from him.
Maharasha (and Soncino in the translation above) take away the bite of this word and translate it
as “only skimmed from them,” or “only narrowed the gap between me and them,” but the simple
reading is “take away,” suggesting that the teacher lost in the process. Now, this is in not how we
think of teaching – we identify with the statement – “And from my students I have learned more
than from anyone.” But if teaching is just passing down of facts, and learning is just receiving of
facts, then a teacher cannot learn from his student – but – if any facts are forgotten because of the
effort of teaching – he can, perhaps, lose in the process. This is the Torah of the water contained
in a perfect container, the plastered pit that holds water, and transferred from one to the other.

Thus R. Eliezer ‘s arms are like Torah scrolls that have not been opened. He has much Torah to
teach, but it is static text, it is essentially a form of Torah shebikhtav, the written Torah; it is not
the dynamic, living Torah she’b’al Peh.

On the death of R. Eliezer, R. Akiva was distraught over the loss of such a great master of Torah.
But R. Akiva understood what R. Eliezer had to offer differently than R. Eliezer. R. Akiva said, “I

44
have many coins” – he had much Torah, even without all of the myriad of facts that R. Eliezer had
to teach. The facts that he did not know, he would derive: “But I have no money-changer to check
them with.” One needs to check one’s coins with someone who has much experience looking at
coins and can tell a good one from a bad one. Laws that are derived based on the human intellect
– analysis, derivation, inference, analogy, and abstraction – need to be tested against the other laws
to see if they are consistent, to see if they are good. That is the value of R. Eliezer ‘s Torah. The
live, vibrant, creative process of talmud Torah is that of R. Akiva. But such a process would lead
to error and could go outside the bounds of acceptable halakha and Torah if not tested against the
received mesorah which is the Torah of R. Eliezer.

In the end, R. Akiva’s approach – checked by R. Eliezer ‘s – is the live, vibrant Torah she’b’al
Peh that is our talmud Torah. R. Eliezer ‘s approach not only eliminated the human component of
and investment in Torah she’b’al Peh, but it also led to a rigidity – to a Torah that cannot exist in
this world, that must make the world bend to it, that cannot abide by “It is not in heaven.” R.
Eliezer died “in purity,” – he was not of this world, his approach to Torah was to keep the Torah
pure, and unsullied by the realities of the world, and he died as he lived, without compromising
this purity. We, however, live by a Torat Chayim, a Torah of Life, a Torah of this world, and
because it is of this world, it is a Torah that gives life to us and to the world.

45