Daf Ditty Megillah 20: Day vs Night

One day you finally knew

what you had to do, and
began,
though the voices around you
kept shouting
their bad advice --
though the whole house
began to tremble
and you felt the old tug
at your ankles.
"Mend my life!"
each voice cried.

1
But you didn't stop.
You knew what you had to do,
though the wind pried
with its stiff fingers
at the very foundations,
though their melancholy
was terrible.
It was already late
enough, and a wild night,
and the road full of fallen
branches and stones.
But little by little,
as you left their voice behind,
the stars began to burn
through the sheets of clouds,
and there was a new voice
which you slowly
recognized as your own,
that kept you company
as you strode deeper and
deeper
into the world,
determined to do
the only thing you could do --
determined to save
the only life that you could
save.
Mary Oliver

2
MISHNA: Although it is preferable to fulfill a particular day’s mitzva at the earliest possible hour,
the entire day is a valid time for reading the Megilla; for reciting hallel; for sounding the
shofar on Rosh HaShana; for taking the lulav and the other species on Sukkot; for the additional
prayer recited on Shabbat and other occasions; and for the additional offerings sacrificed in the
Temple on these occasions.

And the entire day is also a valid time for the confession over the bulls brought by the Sanhedrin
or by the High Priest to atone for mistakes they had made in their instruction to the people; for the
declaration made on the last day of Passover in the fourth and seventh year of the Sabbatical
cycle, stating that one’s obligations with regard to tithes have been properly fulfilled (see
Deuteronomy 26:12–15); and for the confession of sins made by the High Priest on Yom Kippur
over the special offerings brought on that day.

The entire day is also a valid time for placing hands on the head of an offering; for slaughtering
an offering; for waving those offerings that require waving in the Temple; for bringing meal-
offerings near to the altar; for scooping out a fistful of flour from a meal-offering in order to burn

3
it on the altar; and for burning the fistful of flour on the altar; for pinching the necks of the
turtledoves and young pigeons sacrificed as offerings in the Temple; and for receiving the blood
of an offering in a vessel; and for sprinkling blood on the altar and on the curtain separating
between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

And the entire day is also a valid time for giving a woman suspected by her husband of having
been unfaithful [sota] to drink from the bitter waters (see Numbers 5:11–31); for breaking the
neck of the heifer as part of the procedure followed when a corpse is found outside a town and it
is not known who caused his death (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9); and for all the steps in the
purification process of the leper (see Leviticus 14:1–20).

Correspondingly, all the mitzvot that must be performed at night may be performed anytime during
the night: The entire night is a valid time for reaping the omer of barley on the night following
the first day of Passover, for burning the fats of offerings that had been brought during the
preceding day, and for burning the limbs of burnt offerings. This is the principle: Something
that it is a mitzva to perform during the day is valid if performed anytime during the entire
day; something that it is a mitzva to perform at night is valid if performed anytime during the
entire night.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that these mitzvot were commanded to
be performed specifically during the day? With regard to reading the Megilla, the verse states:

-‫כח ְוַהָיִּמים ָהֵאֶלּה ִנְזָכּ ִרים ְוַנֲﬠִשׂים ְבָּכל‬ 28 and that these days should be remembered and
‫ ְמִדיָנה‬,‫ ִמְשָׁפָּחה וִּמְשָׁפָּחה‬,‫דּוֹר ָודוֹר‬ kept throughout every generation, every family, every
,‫ ְוִﬠיר ָוִﬠיר; ִויֵמי ַהפּוּ ִרים ָהֵאֶלּה‬,‫וְּמִדיָנה‬ province, and every city; and that these days of Purim
-‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ ְוִזְכ ָרם‬,‫ ַה ְיּהוִּדים‬o‫ל ֹא ַיַﬠְברוּ ִמתּוֹ‬ should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial
{‫ }ס‬.‫ָיסוּף ִמַזּ ְרָﬠם‬ of them perish from their seed. {S}

4
 Esther 9:28

“That these days should be remembered and kept” For reciting the hallel, the proof is from
that which is written in hallel:

-‫ְמבוֹאוֹ‬-‫ַﬠד‬ ‫ֶשֶׁמשׁ‬-‫ ג ִמִמְּזַרח‬3 From the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof the
.‫ ֵשׁם ְיהָוה‬,‫ ְמֻהָלּל‬- LORD'S name is to be praised.
Ps 113:3

“From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Lord’s name is to be praised”

Rabbi Yosei said: The proof is from another verse in hallel:

‫ָנִגיָלה‬ ;‫ ָﬠָשׂה ְיהָוה‬,‫ַהיּוֹם‬-‫כד ֶזה‬ 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will
.‫ְו ִנְשְׂמָחה בוֹ‬ rejoice and be glad in it.
Ps 118:24

“This is the day that the Lord has made” implying that it is to be recited during the day and not
at night.

RASHI

‫תוספות ד"ה והא קי"ל דעם צאת הכוכבים ליליא הוא‬

Tosfos explains why Tana'im argue about Bein ha'Shemashos.

‫ואם תאמר כיון דקיי"ל דבצאת הכוכבים הוי ליליא א"כ אמאי פליגי ר' יוסי ור' יהודה בבין השמשות לימרו‬
‫בצאת הכוכבים‬

Since we hold that at Tzeis ha'Kochavim it is night, why do R. Yosi and R. Yehudah argue
about Bein ha'Shemashos (which is Safek day, Safek night)? They should say at Tzeis
ha'Kochavim [it is night]!

.‫וי"ל דאף בשיעור צאת הכוכבים יש חילוק שיש כוכבים נראין ביום‬

There is a distinction even regarding the Shi'ur of Tzeis ha'Kochavim. There are big stars
that are seen during the day. (We must see medium stars.)

5
Rabeinu Chanannel

§ The mishna concludes: And with regard to all these things, if one did them after daybreak,
they are valid. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that from daybreak it is
already considered daytime? Rava said: As the verse states:

o‫ ְוַלֹחֶשׁ‬,‫ה ַו ִיְּק ָרא ֱא•ִהים ָלאוֹר יוֹם‬ 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He
‫ יוֹם‬,‫ֹבֶקר‬-‫ֶﬠ ֶרב ַו ְיִהי‬-‫ָק ָרא ָל ְיָלה; ַו ְיִהי‬ called Night. And there was evening and there was
{‫ }פ‬.‫ֶאָחד‬ morning, one day. {P}
Gen 1:5

“And God called the light [or] day” meaning: To that which was becoming lighter and lighter
he called day. The Hebrew word or is not to be understood in its usual sense of light, but as a
verbal noun: that which is becoming lighter and lighter. It teaches that as soon as light begins to
appear in the sky it is called daytime.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation: However, if it is so that Rava’s
interpretation of this phrase is correct, the following phrase: “And the darkness [ḥoshekh] He
called night” (Genesis 1:5), should be interpreted in a similar fashion: That which was becoming
darker and darker He called night, so that immediately after sunset it would be considered
nighttime. But don’t we maintain that until the stars come out it is not nighttime? We are forced
to say that ḥoshekh literally means darkness, and similarly, or in the first part of the verse literally
means light.

6
Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: We derive this halakha from here, as it is stated:

,‫ ֹעִשׂים ַבְּמָּלאָכה; ְוֶחְצָים‬,‫טו ַוֲאַנְחנוּ‬ 15 So we wrought in the work; and half of them
‫ ַﬠד‬,‫ ֵמֲﬠלוֹת ַהַשַּׁחר‬,‫ַמֲחִזיִקים ָבּ ְרָמִחים‬ held the spears from the rising of the morning till
.‫ֵצאת ַהכּוָֹכִבים‬ the stars appeared.
Neh 4:15

“So, we labored in the work; and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning
till the stars appeared” where “rising of the morning” means daybreak, and the next verse states:

--‫ ָאַמ ְרִתּי ָלָﬠם‬,‫טז ַגּם ָבֵּﬠת ַהִהיא‬
;‫ ְירוָּשָׁל ִם‬o‫ ָיִלינוּ ְבּתוֹ‬,‫ִאישׁ ְוַנֲﬠרוֹ‬
‫ ְוַהיּוֹם‬,‫ָלנוּ ַהַלּ ְיָלה ִמְשָׁמר‬-‫ְוָהיוּ‬
.‫ְמָלאָכה‬
16 Likewise at the same time said I unto the people: 'Let
everyone with his servant lodge within Jerusalem, that in
the night they may be a guard to us and may labour in the
day.'
Neh 4:16

“So that in the night they may be a guard to us; and labor in the day”. This demonstrates that
the day begins with the dawn.

The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Zeira’s statement: What need is there for the additional verse
introduced by the words “and it states”? Why does the first proof-text not suffice? The Gemara
explains: The second verse comes to deflect the following possible objection: You might say that
even after “the rising of the morning” it is not yet considered day, and that from the time when
the sun sets it is already considered night, and in this particular incident it happened that they
began their work early, before the official beginning of daytime, and remained working late,
after the official end of daytime. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira continued and said: Come and hear that
which is stated in the next verse: “So that in the night they may be a guard to us; and labor in
the day.” The entire time during which they worked is referred to as “day,” which proves that the
day begins at daybreak.

7
Rambam Mishne Torah Shabbat 5

The period from sunset until the time when three stars of medium size become visible is called
twilight. It is uncertain whether this period is part of the preceding day or of the following night.
We generally decide in favor of greater stringency on this score; hence, the Sabbath lights may
not be lit during twilight.

And one who inadvertently does forbidden work at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and at the
conclusion of Shabbat is nevertheless liable for a sin-offering. And these stars are not the large
ones that are visible during the day and not the small ones that are only visible at night, but rather
the medium ones.

And from when three of these medium stars become visible, it is surely night with no doubt.

8
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 261

(1) 1. The Time to Kindle the Shabbos Lights, 4 Seifim: If there is a doubt as to whether it is
dark, this is bein hashemashos (this is the amount of time to walk 3/4 of a mil after shekiat
hachamah (Tur) [a mil is 1/3 of an hour less than 30 minutes (??); A mil is a Talmudic measure
of distance equivalent to approximately 960 meters (.596 of a mile) according to Shiurei Torah.])
we do not tithe what is certain, we do not immerse the vessels, we do not light the candles and we
do not establish the eiruv techumim ...

(2) 2. There are those who say that we must add from the weekday (mundane) to the holy and the
time of this addition is from the beginning of sunset, i.e., when the sun is no longer visible on the
earth’s [horizon], until bein hashmashos. This period is equivalent to the time [sufficient to walk]
three-and-a-quarter mil (this is approx. 60 minutes). If one desires to deem this entire period of
time as tosefes Shabbos (the addition to Shabbos), he may. If he wants to add less, he may. This is
provided that one will add some amount of time when it is certainly day from the mundane to the
holy. The time of bein hashemashos is 3/4 mil, which is like walking approximately 960 meters or
.596 of a mile before nightfall. RAMA: And if one wishes to do this earlier and accepts Shabbos
upon himself from Plag Hamincha and onward, he may do so. (Tur; Agur in the name of Tosefos)
[See Siman 267].

(3) 3. A person who is not knowledgeable regarding the measure (of bein hashmashos and does
not know when to add to it) should kindle the [Shabbos] lights while the sun is still visible on the
treetops. If it is a cloudy day, he should kindle them when the roosters sit on a beam while it is still
day. If he is in a field where there are no roosters, he should kindle them when the ravens sit there
while it is still day

9
(4) 4. After the answering of 'Barchu', even though it is still day, one does not make an eiruv and
does not insulate because they accepted Shabbat on themselves. And as far as he is concerned,
where they say 'Mizmor Shir l'Yom Hashabbat' (before Barchu) it is like they said Barchu, as far
as he is concerned.

The other extreme - R' Elazar Mi'Mitz

10
Terumat HaDeshen, Part I 1

(1) Question: In most communities it is practiced in the long days of summer to read the evening
Shema, and to pray the evening prayer, 3 or 4 hours before the stars come out. Is there a way to
reconcile this practice, or a reason for this practice since many scholars practice this along with
the masses?

(2) Answer: It is not in our hands to settle this problem, or to find a reason for this tradition to
say Maariv so much earlier, 3 or 4 hours. For Rabbenu Tam wrote that from Plag HaMincha
and onwards is considered night, according to R' Yehuda, and from that point onward the
obligation of Shema and Maariv can be fulfilled. And it is written by the Mordechai, and in the
Hagahot Maimuniyot, and the Ravyah wrote that the words of Rabbenu Tam are primary [i.e.
the law follows him in this case], and he who is stringent and takes it upon himself to wait until
the stars come out as is said by the other great ones, it is seen is arrogance and he is called a
mere layman if he is isn't consistently more stringent upon himself. ... And I also hear in the
Yeshiva in the name of one of the gedolim, who heard and received the word that in the early
days in Krimsh, they would daven Ma'ariv and say Shema on Friday night when it was still early
in the day (afternoon), so much so that the Rav of the city, who was one of the great early
scholars, and all of the fine men of the city were with him, went on a walk after the meal on the
banks of the river Donia and they would return to their house before night ...

Common practice nowadays: Shitas Ha'Geonim/Gra

11
‫ב יא ור ה ל כ ה ר ס ״ א ‪ :‬ב ׳‬

‫‪12‬‬
Common practice - 8.5° (2 mil in Yerushalayim at the equinox)

This week (near summer solstice)

Quito, Ecuador (at equator): 33 minutes

San Jose, Costa Rica (9.7° N): 34 minutes

Haiti, DR (19.0° N): 36 minutes

Yerushalayim (31.8° N): 42 minutes

New York (40.7° N): 49 minutes

London (51.5° N): 71 minutes

Helsinki (60.2° N): ----- (never gets there!)

Sept 21 (fall equinox)

Quito, Ecuador (at equator): 31 minutes

San Jose, Costa Rica (9.7° N): 31 minutes

Haiti, DR (19.0° N): 32 minutes

Yerushalayim (31.8° N): 36 minutes

New York (40.7° N): 41 minutes

London (51.5° N): 50 minutes

Helsinki (60.2° N): 62 minutes

Summary1

The whole day is a valid time for

reading the Megillah;
reciting Hallel;
for the blowing of the shofar;
for taking up the lulav;
for the Musaf prayer;
for Musaf sacrifices;
for confession over the oxen;
for the confession over the tithe;
for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim;

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.20b.6?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Megillah.2.5&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%2
0Mishnah&lang3=en

13
for laying on of hands;
for slaughtering [the sacrifices];
for waving [them];
for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar];
for taking a handful;
for placing it on the fire;
for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering];
for receiving the blood [in a vessel];
for sprinkling [the blood on the altar];
for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters];
for breaking the neck of the heifer;
and for purifying the metzora.

One can fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the Megillah at any time during the day. Our mishnah
gives a very long list of numerous other rituals that one can perform at any time during the day.
Since this list is very long, I will not explain each item in detail, but rather mostly refer to the
relevant biblical verse(s) which deal with the issue. I will not even comment on issues that seem
abundantly clear.

Sections 6-7: On Shabbat, holidays and Rosh Hodesh there are musaf sacrifices and musaf
prayers. The sacrifices can be offered at any time during the day and the prayers may be recited
throughout the whole day.

Section 8: For confession over the ox One who brings an ox as a sacrifice also confesses to the
sin for which the ox is brought (Leviticus 4:3,14).

Section 9: For the confession over the tithe on the fourth and seventh years of the sabbatical
cycle one makes a confession that he has “removed all of the holy produce from his home”
(Deuteronomy 26:13).

Section 10: For the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim The high priest recites a confession
over the sacrifices (Leviticus 16:21; see also Yoma 3:8, 4:2, 6:2).

Section 11: For laying on of hands one lays one’s hands on an animal sacrifice before it is
slaughtered (Leviticus 1:4).

Section 13: For waving [them] one waves the innards and the breast of wellbeing offerings
(Leviticus 7:30).

Section 14-16: these are all elements of the minhah offering.

Section 17: For pinching off [the head of a bird-offering] Leviticus 1:15, 5:8.

Section 18: For receiving the blood [in a vessel] in order to sprinkle it on the altar.

14
Section 20: For breaking the neck of the heifer if a dead body is found in a field and the identity
of the murderer is unknown (Deuteronomy 21:1)

Section 21: And for purifying the metzora Leviticus 14.

Time of Day/Any Time of Night

The rabbis add to their dispute about whether or not a person who is deaf can recite the Megilla
(and be heard by others to meet their obligations to hear the Megilla). They move back to the
example of the Shema. The Shema is to be heard and spoken because of its wording, "Hear O
Israel...". However, Rabbi Meir believes that the Shema does not need to be spoken aloud, for the
following phrase from Deuteronomy (6:6) are "(and these words) that I command you today shall
be in your heart...". Because the "words"of the Shema go after the intent of the heart, hearing is
not required; the words need not be spoken aloud; people who are deaf can lead this prayer. This
is followed by another example of people who are deaf fulfilling mitzvot that - by the letter of the
law - are not obliged.

Contrary to this example, we learn that minors are not exempt from their exemption! Rabbi Meir
argues about minors doing the mitzvot of terumah based on his own experience. Through this
example we learn another principle: one cannot teach a proof text based on his own experience.

A new Mishna teaches that certain acts must occur after daybreak - before sunrise but after the
first light of sun:

• read the Megilla

• perform a circumcision
• immerse in a mikvah
o sprinkle water of purification (regarding ritual impurity due to contact with a
corpse)
o immerse in a mikvah following two days non-bleeding for every one day of
menstrual bleeding

The Gemara walks us through each of these requirements, providing prooftexts as they go.

Of particular interest is the rule regarding women's immersion. Why are these women not 'covered'
by the first guideline regarding immersion? The rabbis suggest that this extra reminder is
necessary because women have to remember to count their days without bleeding without counting
half-days, as might happen for a man who is a zav. Zavim are able to immerse the same day that
they witness discharge in certain situations; this is never the case for women who have

15
menstruated.

Amud (b) explains the last guideline in our Mishna: if one does these things after daybreak, they
are valid. The Gemara discusses our understandings of day and night, based on the verses in
Genesis 1:5. G-d called the light day means that becoming lighter means daytime. And the
darkness He called night means that which becomes darker and darker is called night. But wouldn't
that mean that night would be any time after sunset? How could this be when we know that we
require three stars to be seen before we call the evening 'night'? The rabbis turn to teachings of
Rabbi Zeira to help confirm that 'daybreak' has the same meaning as 'day'.

We are introduced to another new Mishna. If something is allowed during the day, it is allowed
at any time of day. If something is permitted at night, it is allowed at any time of night.

Daytime, any time, is also appropriate for

• reading the Megilla

• reading Hallel
• sounding the shofar
• taking the lulav
• the additional prayer
• the additional offerings
o Confession over the bulls (brought by the Sanhedrin or High Priest to atone for
mistakes they had made in their instructions given to the people)
• declarations regarding tithes on Pesach
• confession of sins on Yom Kippur
• placing hands
• slaughtering
• waving
• bringing meal-offerings near the altar
• scooping out a fistful of flour from a meal-offering to burn on the altar
• burning the flour
• pinching the necks of turtledoves/young pigeons as offerings
• receiving the blood of an offering in a vessel
• sprinkling
o having a sotah (a woman suspected by her husband of adultery) to drink the bitter
waters
o breaking the neck of the heifer (when a corpse is found outside of town, and it is
unknown who killed it)
• all steps in purification process of the leper
The following acts can be performed at any time during the night:

16
 • reaping the omer
• burning the fats
• burning the limbs of burnt offerings

Where is it written that these things must be done during the day or night? The Gemara finds
prooftexts for each of the listed actions. We end today's daf with the justification for the trial of a
sotah during the day. Using the word "Torah" as their marker, the rabbis note that "the priest
executes this Torah" on the sotah (Numbers 5:30) and that "According to the Torah... and
according to the judgement" (Deuteronomy 17:11). Because judgement is done only by day
(Deuteronomy 21:16), the sotah's process must be done by day, too.

Amazing, the meticulous detail that has gone into the creation and recreation of this document
over centuries. I have heard it said that the Torah is a blueprint - if that is true, the details of the
Talmud are like the tiny, precise notes that accompany that blueprint. Just amazing to witness the
thousands and thousands of hours that have been dedicated to each phrase that I read.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

Everyone is eligible to read the Megillah (on Purim), except for a deaf person, a deranged person
and a minor. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a minor is eligible to read the Megillah. The Gemora
assumes that one who hears the Megillah from a deaf person does not fulfill his obligation at all –
even after the fact (and he must read it again).

The Gemora asks: Which Tanna holds like this? Rav Masnah answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi
Yosi, for we learned in our Mishna: If one recites the shema without hearing what he is saying, he
has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora
questions the initial assumption: Perhaps the Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, and
it is only preferable that a deaf person should not read the Megillah, but if he does read it, it is
valid – after the fact?

The Gemora answers: You cannot think such a thing, for the Mishna places a deaf person on the
same level as a deranged person and a minor. This implies that just as in the case of a deranged
person and a minor, the recital is not valid even after the fact, so too in the case of a deaf person,
the recital is not valid even after the fact.

The Gemora asks: But perhaps each case has its own rule (that the reading of a deranged person
and a minor are not valid even after the fact, but the reading of a deaf person is indeed valid)? The
Gemora answers: Can you construe this statement as reflecting Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion? [No,
you cannot!] Since the later clause (in the Mishna) says that Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a minor
is eligible to read the Megillah, may we not conclude that the earlier clause does not represent
Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion?

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Megillah_20.pdf

17
The Gemora asks: Perhaps the entire Mishna follows Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, and two kinds of
minors are being discussed, and it is as if there are missing some words in the Mishna, and it should
be read as follows: Everyone is eligible to read the Megillah, except for a deaf person, a deranged
person and a minor. When do these words apply? They apply only to one who is not old enough
to be trained in the performance of mitzvos, but one who is old enough to be trained, may read the
Megillah even the first instance; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah, for Rabbi Yehudah
declares a minor qualified.

The Gemora demonstrates how this cannot be the case: Now what is your conclusion? It is that the
Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, and that the recital is valid only after the fact, but it
should not be done in that manner in the first instance. But then what would you say regarding the
following braisa which was taught by Rabbi Yehudah, the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf
person who can speak but not hear may designate terumah in the first instance. Whose view does
this follow. It can be neither Rabbi Yehudah’s, nor Rabbi Yosi’s.

The Gemora explains: It cannot Rabbi Yehudah’s, since he says that it is valid only after the fact,
but it should not be done in that manner in the first instance. It cannot be Rabbi Yosi’s, since he
says that even after the fact, it is not valid!?

The Gemora accordingly concludes: What must we say then? The braisa is Rabbi Yehudah’s
opinion, and he maintains that it is valid in that manner even in the first instance. The Gemora
asks: What then would you say to that which was taught in the following braisa: A man should not
say the Grace after Meals in his heart (i.e., he is saying the words, but they are inaudible to his
ear), but if he does so, he has fulfilled his obligation. Whose opinion is this? It is neither Rabbi
Yosi’s, nor Rabbi Yehudah’s.

The Gemora explains: It cannot be Rabbi Yehudah’s, since he said that even if he does so in the
first instance, he has fulfilled his obligation. It also cannot be Rabbi Yosi’s, since he says that even
after the fact, it is not valid! The Gemora answers: It, in fact, follows Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion,
and he holds that it may be done in that manner even in the first instance, and there is no difficulty
(regarding the opinion of the braisa concerning the Grace after Meals), for one (the braisa taught
by R’ Shimon ben Pazi regarding terumah) represents his own opinion (that an inaudible recital is
valid in the first instance), and the other (the braisa regarding the Grace after Meals) represents the
opinion of his teacher (that an inaudible recital is valid only after the fact), as we have learned in
a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah: When one recites the
Shema, he must make it audible to his ear, as it is written: Hear, O Israel, Hashem is our God,
Hashem is One. Rabbi Meir said to him: Behold, it is written (in the next verse): That which I
commanded you this day upon your heart; from which we can infer that the validity of the words
depends on the intention of the heart (and it is not necessary, even in the first instance, to make the
words audible to one’s ear)!

The Gemora notes that once this braisa had been cited, you may even say that Rabbi Yehudah
agrees with his teacher (R’ Elozar ben Azaryah that an inaudible recital is valid only after the fact),
and there is no difficulty, for one (the braisa taught by R’ Shimon ben Pazi) represents the opinion
of Rabbi Meir (that an inaudible recital is valid in the first instance), and the others (regarding the

18
opinion of the braisa concerning the Grace after Meals, and the Mishna regarding terumah)
represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah (that an inaudible recital is valid only after the fact).

The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a minor is eligible to read the Megillah.
It has been taught in a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: When I was a boy, I read it (the Megillah)
before Rabbi Tarfon and the elders in Lod. They said to him: A proof cannot be adduced from a
recollection of a minor. It has been taught in a braisa: Rebbe said: When I was a minor, I read it
before Rabbi Yehudah. They said to him: A proof cannot be adduced from the very authority who
permits it.

The Gemora asks: Why did they not say to him: A proof cannot be adduced from recollections of
a minor? The Gemora answers: They gave him a double answer. For one thing, they said, you were
a minor, and besides, even had you been grown up, proof cannot be brought from the very authority
who permits it.

The Mishna states: One may not read the Megillah, nor perform a circumcision, nor immerse (in
a ritual bath), nor sprinkle (from the waters of purification) and similarly, the woman who observes
a day against a day (There is an eleven-day span between a woman’s menstrual periods. If during
these days, she experienced a discharge, she must observe one day free from any bloody discharge.
She may immerse herself on that day she would become tahor in the evening if she remained
clean.) may not immerse herself, until the sun shines. (All of the aforementioned mitzvos cannot
be performed at night.) If these mitzvos were performed after dawn arose, it is valid. (20a) The
Gemora cites the Scriptural source proving that the Megillah cannot be read before the morning.
It is written and these days should be remembered and celebrated, which implies, that they are to
be so by day, but not by night.

The Gemora asks: Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; for Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is a mitzvah to read the Megillah by night and a second time by day?
The Gemora answers: When the Mishnah makes this statement, it is referring to the reading by
day. The Gemora cites the Scriptural sources for the halachah that all these mitzvos must be
performed during the day and not by night.

The Gemora cites Scriptural sources proving that the day begins after dawn. Rava said: It is
because it is written: And God called the light, “day” - that which gradually becomes light - He
called day. The Gemora asks: But according to this, when it says: and the darkness, He called
night, are we to explain that which gradually becomes dark, He called night? Is it not generally
agreed that until the stars come out it is not regarded as night? Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: We derive
it from here (Nechemia 4:15): And we were doing work, and half of them were holding spears
from the rise of dawn until the emergence of the stars. Another verse states (ibid. v.16): And the
night will be for our watch and the day for work. The Gemora digresses and asks: What is the
necessity for the two verses? The Gemora explains that if we only had the first verse, we might
have thought that the day concludes at sunset, but those men were working longer hours. This is
why the second verse is necessary.

The Mishna states: The entire day is appropriate for the reading of the Megillah, the recital of
Hallel, the blowing of the shofar, the taking of the lulav, the Mussaf prayer, the offering of the

19
korban mussaf, the confession which is recited together with the offering of the bulls (if the Kohen
Gadol or the Sanhedrin issue an erroneous halachic ruling, they must confess and offer certain
korbanos), the confession of the ma’aser (people state on the last day of Pesach during the fourth
and seventh year of the Shemitah cycle that they have fulfilled their obligations regarding ma’aser),
the confession of Yom Kippur (the Kohen Gadol’s korbanos), the leaning of the hands on a korban,
the slaughtering of the korbanos, the waving of the korbanos, the bringing near of the flour
offerings to the Mizbeach, the scooping of the handful from the flour offerings and its burning on
the Mizbeach, the severing of the neck of a birdoffering, the receiving of the blood of korbanos,
the sprinkling of the blood of the korbanos, the giving the sotah the bitter waters to drink (part of
the process to determine if a woman committed adultery), the beheading of the calf (the elders of
a city closest to a corpse found in a field decapitate a calf), and for the purifying of the metzora.

The Mishna continues: The entire night is appropriate for the reaping of the omer (in preparation
for the barley offering on the sixteenth of Nissan) the burning of the sacrificial fats and limbs. This
is the general rule: A mitzvah that must be performed during the day may be performed the entire
day; and a mitzvah that must be performed during the night may be performed the entire night.

The Gemora cites Scriptural sources proving that the mitzvos mentioned in the Mishna must be
performed by day.

IT IS REGARDED AS NIGHT AFTER PLAG HAMINCHA

The Gemora states that it is not regarded as night until the stars come out. It is brought in the name
of the Imrei Emes (Eretz Tzvi (25/26) that if one davens Maariv on Erev Rosh Chodesh (the day
before Rosh Chodesh) from plag hamincha (one hour and fifteen minutes before sunset) and on,
he should not recite yaaleh v'yovo for Rosh Chodesh in Shemoneh Esrei. The reason provided is
based on a Magen Avraham (419), who cites from the Shalah that one cannot add additional time
to Rosh Chodesh like he can to Shabbos and Yom Tov.

The Mishna Berura (693:4) rules regarding one who davens Maariv after plag hamincha before
Purim; he should recite al hanisim in Shemoneh Esrei. The Sha'ar Hatziyon comments that this is
based on the ruling that one may daven Maariv for the next day after plag hamincha and there are
no poskim who rule that one should not recite yaaleh v'yovo when he is davening Maariv early
before Rosh Chodesh. One is allowed to recite havdalah after plag hamincha if he already davened
Maariv. Mishna Berura concludes that it is evident from here that form plag hamincha and on; it
is regarded as night in respect to davening.

RABBINIC MITZVAH OF SEFIRAS HAOMER

Tosfos states that after the counting of the omer, one should say the following tefillah: Should be
the will of Hashem that the Beis Hamikdosh should be rebuilt. This is recited because the mitzvah
nowadays is rabbinic and serves to commemorate the biblical mitzvah in the times when the Beis
Hamikdosh was in existence.

Tosfos asks: What is the difference between the mitzvah of sefiras haomer and the mitzvos of
sounding the shofar and taking a lulav which is also only rabbinic nowadays and this additional

20
tefillah is not recited? He answers: The mitzvah of sefiras haomer is merely a reminder of the Beis
Hamikdosh and the other mitzvos involve an action. The distinction is extremely ambiguous, and
the commentators struggle to explain the difference.

The Gemora in Menochos (66a) says: Ameimar would count days and not weeks. He said: The
mitzvah of counting the omer is only to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh. The Brisker Rov
explains: The rabbinic mitzvah of sefiras haomer is different than other rabbinic mitzvos. A regular
rabbinic mitzvah, such as eating marror on Pesach, is the identical mitzvah nowadays as was in
the times of the Beis Hamikdosh. The only difference is that then it was biblical and now it is only
rabbinic.

Sefiras haomer is different. The purpose of the mitzvah mitzvah of counting the omer nowadays
was not for the counting, but rather it was established to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh. The
mitzvah nowadays is not the same mitzvah as it was then. This is why Ameimar maintains that in
the times of the Beis Hamikdosh, they counted days and weeks and nowadays, we only count the
days. According to this, he explains the Ba’al Hamaor at the end of Pesachim.

The Ba’al Hamaor says that we do not recite a shehechiyonu on sefiras haomer like we do by other
mitzvos because it is only a mitzvah of remembering the Beis Hamikdosh. Shehechiyonu is recited
at a time of joy, and it would not be appropriate to recite it when we are recalling the tragedy of
the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh and the present exile. By other rabbinical mitzvos, a
shehechiyonu is recited because the purpose of the mitzvah was for the sake of the mitzvah and
not to remind us of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh. This is the explanation of Tosfos. The
special tefillah of requesting the building of the Beis Hamikdosh is exclusively reserved for the
mitzvah of sefiras haomer, which was only instituted to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh.

MEGILLAH AT NIGHT
The Mishna states: The entire night is appropriate for the reaping of the omer (in preparation for
the barley offering on the sixteenth of Nissan) the burning of the sacrificial fats and limbs.

The Rishonim are bothered why the Mishna doesn’t list other mitzvos that are applicable by night,
such as Krias shema and the reading of the Megillah. The Rashba says: It can be inferred from this
Mishna that the primary obligation to read the Megillah is only by day and not by night. This is
because the main publicizing of the miracle happens by day. He rules that a brocha is not recited
on the reading of the Megillah at night. This is the reason why the villagers only read the Megillah
during the day and not by night.

The Rashba does conclude that the villagers should read the Megillah at night, but they are not
required to read it publicly. The Turei Even compares the reading of the Megillah to the celebration
of Purim based on the passuk in the Megillah [9:7]: And these days should be remembered and
celebrated. Just like the Purim feast must be eaten during the day, so too the primary Megillah
reading should be done by day.

Pnei Yehoshua writes that the obligation to read the Megillah is by day because the victory over
their enemies transpired by day and the night is not a time for battle; it is merely customary to read

21
the Megillah by night. We nevertheless recite a brocha by night similar to other customs where a
brocha is recited. However, the Sheiltos (78) maintains that the reading of the Megillah by night
is more essential than the reading by day.

Reb Binyomin Adler writes:

The Mishna states that any mitzvah that is required to be performed during the day can be
performed the entire day, and any mitzvah that must be performed at night can be performed the
entire night. While one can only perform a daytime mitzvah during the day, one has the opportunity
to prepare for the mitzvah and anticipate its arrival at night.

On the first night of Sukkos, Reb Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev would stay awake all night in
anticipation of the first moment of sunlight when he would then be allowed to recite the blessing
on the lulav and esrog. The story is told that once the esrog was lying in a glass-door cabinet. In
his great excitement to perform the mitzvah, Reb Levi Yitzchak failed to notice the “obstruction."

Reb Levi Yitzchak simply put his hand through the glass and, with incredible fervor, recited the
appropriate blessing and fulfilled the mitzvah. Only after his excitement had somewhat abated did
Reb Levi Yitzchak notice his bloodied hand. Similarly, at the end of the holidays of Sukkos and
Pesach (when Chasidim do not wear Tefillin), Reb Levi Yitzchak would not sleep all night, as he
would wait for the first opportunity to put on Tefillin after the long interruption. HaShem should
allow us to merit anticipating the performance of His precious mitzvos.

RECITING PRAYERS INAUDIBLY

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Mishnah (20b) states that a deaf person may not read the Megilah, even b'Di'eved. In the
Gemara, Rav Masnah attributes the Mishnah to Rebbi Yosi. Rebbi Yosi's opinion appears in
Berachos (15a), where he says that one who reads the Shema without hearing it does not fulfill his
obligation. Rebbi Yehudah there disagrees with Rebbi Yosi and says that one fulfills his obligation
(apparently, even l'Chatchilah) even though he does not hear what he says. Since Rebbi Yosi
maintains that one must hear what he says (even b'Di'eved), a deaf person may not read the
Megilah.

The Gemara engages in a lengthy discussion in which it cites several Mishnayos and Beraisos
which discuss cases in which one recites a prayer or blessing inaudibly. The Gemara proposes
suggestions for which Tana is the author of each one. In the end of its discussion, the Gemara
introduces a third Tana, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who maintains that one who reads the Shema
without hearing what he says fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved. The Gemara concludes that Rebbi
Yehudah agrees with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-020.htm

22
In the first stage of the Sugya, when the Gemara assumes that Rebbi Yehudah does not agree with
Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, RASHI (DH l'Olam Rebbi Yehudah) writes that the Tana of the
Mishnah here is Rebbi Yosi, as Rav Masnah originally suggests, and thus a deaf person may not
read the Megilah even b'Di'eved.

In the end of the Sugya, when the Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi Elazar
ben Azaryah, RASHI (DH Afilu Teima Rebbi Yehudah) writes that the author of the Mishnah
here is not Rebbi Yosi but Rebbi Yehudah, and the Mishnah means that a deaf person may not
read the Megilah l’Chatchilah, but he may read it b'Di'eved. Hence, Rav Masnah's original
suggestion is incorrect.

Why does Rashi change this point from the first stage of the Sugya to the second stage? Even in
the second stage of the Gemara, the Tana of the Mishnah here could be Rebbi Yosi!
(MAHARSHA; see MAHARATZ CHAYOS.)

(a) Rashi understands that when the Gemara introduces the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah
(who says that one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved when he does not hear what he says), the
Gemara's intention is to defend the statement of Rav Masnah. How does the Gemara support his
statement?

The Gemara first asserts that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah of the Beraisa is the only Tana who
maintains that one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved when he does not hear what he says. By
demonstrating that there is no Tana in any Mishnah (other than Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah here)
who is of that opinion, the Gemara proves that it must be that the Tana of the Mishnah in Terumos
who says that one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved is none other than Rebbi Yosi. It is unlikely that
the Tana of the Mishnah in Terumos is a Tana who is not mentioned in any other Mishnah (but
only in a Beraisa, such as Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah). Similarly, the Gemara defends Rav Masnah
by showing that Rebbi Yosi is the only Tana in a Mishnah who is of the opinion that one fulfills
his obligation b'Di'eved. Accordingly, the Tana of the Mishnah here is most likely Rebbi Yosi (and
the Mishnah is teaching that a deaf person may not read the Megilah even b'Di'eved).

When the Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rashi
understands that the Gemara is refuting Rav Masnah conclusively. That is, each of the other
Mishnayos could be either Rebbi Yehudah or Rebbi Yosi, and thus it is incorrect to assert that the
Mishnayos can be only Rebbi Yosi.

(b) However, the suggestion that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah (who says that
one fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved when he does not hear what he reads) seems to be somewhat
forced. After all, if the Mishnah maintains that a deaf person fulfills his obligation b'Di'eved, then
it is necessary to differentiate between the three groups of people who are listed together in the
Mishnah (Cheresh, Shoteh, Katan), as the Gemara said earlier ("Ha k'd'Isa..."). The fact that they
are listed together, however, implies that the same Halachah applies to all of them. Why, then,
does the Gemara prefer to reject Rav Masnah's suggestion and attempt to establish the Mishnah
like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah?

23
TOSFOS (19b, DH v'Dilma) explains that the Gemara prefers that the Mishnah follow the opinion
of Rebbi Yehudah because of the tradition that the Halachah is in accordance with Rebbi Yehudah
of the Mishnah in Berachos (15a).

However, at this stage, the Gemara suggests that Rebbi Yehudah of the Mishnah in Berachos
allows a deaf person to read l'Chatchilah. It is his rebbi, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who allows it
only b'Di'eved but not l'Chatchilah. There is no reason to "force" the Mishnah here to conform
with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah since his opinion is not the Halachah. For this
reason, Rashi here does not entertain the possibility that the Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.
Rather, Rav Masnah was correct; the Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

TWO MISHNAYOS THAT SHOULD BE ONE

The Mishnah (20a) lists five Mitzvos that may be done only after sunrise. These include Mikra
Megilah, Milah, Tevilah, Haza'ah, and Tevilah of a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom. The Mishnah
(20b) then says that any Mitzvah which must be done during the day may be done at any time
during the day. The Mishnah mentions the Mitzvah of Mikra Megilah (as it mentions in the
previous Mishnah), and it proceeds to list twenty other Mitzvos, none of which are mentioned in
the first Mishnah.

The first Mishnah could have mentioned all of the Mitzvos mentioned in the second Mishnah,
because all of those Mitzvos must be done after sunrise. Similarly, the second Mishnah could have
mentioned all of the Mitzvos mentioned in the first Mishnah, because all of those Mitzvos may be
done at any time during the day after sunrise. Why are these lists divided into two separate
Mishnayos? (RASHBA in the name of RABEINU TAM; TUREI EVEN)

The RASHBA and RITVA write that the first Mishnah lists only Mitzvos for which the
requirement that they be performed after sunrise is novel. It is a Chidush that the morning reading
of the Megilah may not begin until daybreak, because the other reading of the Megilah is done at
night l'Chatchilah. It is a Chidush that Milah -- when performed she'Lo bi'Zemanah (on the ninth
day or later) -- may not be done at night (indeed, Tana'im debate this issue). It is a Chidush that
even the dipping of the Ezov into the water ("Tovlim," according to Tosfos and other Rishonim)
may not be done at night, even though the sprinkling is done during the day. Shomeres Yom
k'Neged Yom involves a Chidush, as the Gemara itself points out.

Why does the second Mishnah not list the Mitzvos that are mentioned in the first Mishnah?
The RITVA explains that when the second Mishnah mentions "Korin ha'Megilah," the first
Mitzvah of the list in the earlier Mishnah, it means "Korin ha'Megilah etc." -- that is, it refers to
all of the other Mitzvos listed in the first Mishnah when it mentions the Mitzvah of Megilah.

A simple answer may be suggested to explain why the Mitzvos mentioned in the first Mishnah do
not appear in the second Mishnah's list of Mitzvos which "are done during the day and are valid
the entire day." Of the first Mishnah's five Mitzvos -- Megilah, Milah, Tevilah, Haza'ah, and
Tevilas Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom -- four of them (with the exception of Megilah) are not
actions performed specifically during the day! Although Milah may not be performed before
sunrise of the eighth day, when Milah is performed she'Lo bi'Zemanah (on the ninth day or later)

24
it may be performed at night (according some Tana'im). Similarly, Tevilah may be performed any
time after sunrise, even at night of the following day (RASHI DH v'Lo Tovlin), and the same
applies to Tevilas Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom. (Although Haza'ah indeed may never be
performed at night, it is not mentioned in the Mishnah to teach the laws of Haza'ah but to disclose
the source of the Halachah that Tevilah must wait until sunrise, as the Gemara explains.) It is clear
why the Mishnah does not list these Mitzvos among the Mitzvos which "are performed during the
day and are valid the entire day," as these Mitzvos are not considered Mitzvos "performed during
the day." (-Based on the PNEI YEHOSHUA.)4

This explains why the second Mishnah does not list all the Mitzvos which are mentioned in the
first Mishnah (according to Rashi). The first Mishnah, however, could have included all of the
Mitzvos mentioned in the second Mishnah, since all of those Mitzvos must be done only after
sunrise. Why does it not include those Mitzvos? The answer is that the Tana found a more concise
way to teach that all of the Mitzvos of the second Mishnah must be performed after sunrise: by
simply listing one of those Mitzvos in the first Mishnah (the Mitzvah of Megilah) and repeating it
in the second Mishnah, the Tana teaches that all the other cases in the second Mishnah may be
compared to Megilah -- which is valid only from sunrise and on, as the first Mishnah says. The
second Mishnah therefore has no need to mention the other Mitzvos listed in the first Mishnah.
Why does the Tana repeat specifically the Mitzvah of Megilah in both Mishnayos? The answer is
that the Mitzvah of Megilah is the subject of the Maseches, and thus the Tana needs to be clear
and explicit when discussing its laws (in contrast to the other laws which are mentioned in the
Mishnah only as an aside). (-Based on the TUREI EVEN.)

There is a basic difference between the laws taught by the two Mishnayos. The first
Mishnah limits the time during which a Mitzvah may be performed and teaches that it may be
performed only after sunrise and not earlier. The second Mishnah, in contrast, extends the amount
of time during which a Mitzvah may be performed and teaches that it may be
performed anytime during the day, and not just early in the day (Rashi DH Kol ha'Yom).

Perhaps each Mishnah lists only those cases which contain a Chidush. The first Mishnah lists only
Mitzvos which may be performed for an extended period (they may be performed an any day), and
nevertheless their time is limited somewhat (they may be performed only after sunrise). It lists
Milah, Tevilah (either Tevilah of a person or of an Ezov), Haza'ah, and Tevilas Shomeres Yom,
because all of these Mitzvos may be performed on any day after the required time passes, and they
are not limited to a specific day. The Megilah, too, may be read on a number of days (as described
in the Mishnah on 2a) and is not limited to one specific day. (Although each city or village may
read the Megilah only on one specific day, the Mitzvah is considered to have an extended time in
the sense that the Chachamim reserved five days for the performance of the same Mitzvah of
Megilah.)

4
This answer, however, is valid only according to Rashi. According to Tosfos and the other Rishonim, the "Tevilah" of the first
Mishnah refers to Tevilas Ezov, dipping the hyssop into the Mei Chatas, which may never be done at night. It certainly qualifies
as a Mitzvah "performed during the day." Why, then, is it not mentioned in the second Mishnah? Similarly, according to
the RASHBA and RITVA, when the first Mishnah says that Milah may be done only after sunrise, it refers to Milah she'Lo
bi'Zemanah and it follows the Tana who permits the Mitzvah of Milah to be done only during the day. Accordingly, Milah should
have been listed in the second Mishnah as well since it certainly qualifies as a Mitzvah "performed during the day."

25
The second Mishnah, which extends the time allowed for the Mitzvah, lists only those Mitzvos
which seem to have more limits to when they may be performed. The Mishnah teaches that they
nevertheless are not limited to a specific time during the day but may be performed all day. The
Mitzvos of Hallel, Shofar, Lulav, Musaf, etc., are limited to a specific day and may not be
performed on any day one wants. For example, if one holds the Lulav only on one day of Sukos,
he transgresses the positive Mitzvah to hold the Lulav for all of the other days of the festival; each
day has its own Mitzvah which may not be done on any other day.
The Mitzvah of Megilah is included in the second Mishnah because it also has a time-limitation.
Each specific city or village must read the Megilah on only one day of the year. One might have
thought that its reading is limited to a specific time of the day as well. The Mishnah therefore
teaches that it may be performed throughout the entire day.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The Mishnah (19b) teaches that anyone can read the Megillah for others, with the exception of
a cheresh, shoteh, ve-katan – a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a child. Rabbi Yehuda permits
a katan to read the Megillah for others. While some of the commentaries try to explain how the
case of the deaf-mute reading aloud for others is possible – suggesting that in this particular case
we are talking about someone who is deaf and cannot hear, but can, in fact speak – the Talmud
Yerushalmi simply says that we cannot possibly be talking about a cheresh reading for others.
The cheresh is mentioned in the Mishnah only because he is always partnered with the shoteh and
the katan, but it has no true significance in our case.

With regard to the katan, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda not only permits a child to read
the Megillah for others, in fact he testified that when he was a child, he read the Megillah in the
presence of Rabbi Tarfon and the elders of Lod. His fellow Sages did not accept this as proof that
a child can read for others, arguing that they do not accept proof from the story of a child. When
Rabbi testified that as a child, he read the Megillah for Rabbi Yehuda, his peers rejected this as
any indication of normative practice, arguing that they do not accept proof from the activity of the
person who himself was the one who permitted this behavior.

In truth, when dealing with issues of a Rabbinic nature – and keri’at Megillah certainly falls into
that category – then we do accept the testimony of an adult who relates what he saw or experienced
as a child. The R”id explains that keri’at Megillah is an exception, since it is a public reading
from TaNaKH it is given the severity and significance of a Biblical law. The Birkei Yosef argues
that this rule does not apply in our case, since we can only trust a childhood memory of a specific,
clearly defined occurrence. In our case, Rabbi Yehuda merely reminisced about his reading
the Megillah before Rabbi Tarfon and other Sages. That testimony does not clearly indicate that
those Sages accepted the reading as valid – perhaps they listened to another rendition of
the Megillah beforehand or afterwards.

5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah1622/

26
The Mishnah on ‘‫ א עמוד‬listed five halachos which should be performed beginning only at sunrise.
The Mishnah on ‘‫ ב עמוד‬lists a total of twenty-three halachos which can be performed anytime
during the day.6

The Rishonim note that, surprisingly, among the halachos listed in the second Mishnah, only the
first of the five halachos (reading of Megilla) from the first Mishnah is listed. Why, they ask, are
the other four halachos not featured in the second Mishnah, where we learn that these mitzvos can
be done throughout the day? Ritva and Meiri comment that by listing the first halacha, the Mishnah
is referring to the entire list from ‘‫א עמוד‬.

It was not necessary to list them all individually, but, in fact, they all can be performed beginning
at sunrise and throughout the day. Turei Even explains that the the Mishnah on ‘ ‫א עמוד‬comes to
teach that the five mitzvos listed there should not be done earlier that sunrise.

The second Mishnah is a continuation of that list, and this is indicated with it beginning by
repeating the mitzvah of reading of Megillah, which is selected as representative of the earlier list
because it is the first item from ‘‫א עמוד‬, and it is also the theme of our Massechta. Meiri wonders
why the mitzvos in these two Mishnayos are broken into two separate categories. They all share
the same halacha of having their fulfillment begin preferably at sunrise (or as early as ‫)השחר עמוד‬
and that they may be done anytime during the day. He points out, in the name of ‫גדולי הדורות‬, that
the common denominator of the first five cases is that once the day has passed, the mitzvah is not
cancelled. In fact, one must try to fulfill the mitzvah as soon as possible, even though the day of
its performance has elapsed.

The general rule among the mitzvos in the second Mishnah features halachos which can no longer
be fulfilled once the time has passed. Although reading of the Megillah cannot be done once Purim
is over, it is mentioned in the first list because it is the focus of our Massechta, and in a certain
sense, its fulfillment spans many days, from the eleventh to the fifteenth of Adar.

(Vidui ma’aser is listed in the second Mishnah because it is parallel in action to vidui of the bull
on Yom Kippur. Slaughter of animals for various offerings is also listed in the second Mishnah
because there are many offerings which are time sensitive. Egla arufa and Sota are listed because
their accompanying are disqualified if not completed the day of their offering.)

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20020.pdf

27
The Sefer Chasidim (1) wrote that a person should not delay the performance of a mitzvah in order
to be able to perform it later in a more beautiful manner. For example, if there is a talis available
for purchase now but sometime later a more beautiful talis will become available, one should not
delay the performance of the mitzvah, and the talis that is presently available should be purchased.

This is also the position held by the Magen Avrohom (2). The Terumas Hadeshen (3) held the
opposite. If the fulfillment of the mitzvah will not be lost it is better to delay having the ability to
perform the mitzvah in a more beautiful manner, than to perform it earlier without the same degree
of accompanying beauty.

Shulchan Aruch (4), following this position, rules that one should delay saying kiddush levana
until Motzei Shabbos so that the beracha can be recited while wearing nicer garments, rather than
recite it earlier in the week without the nicer garments.

Poskim (5) write that even according to the position of Terumas Hadeshen one should not delay
the fulfillment of a mitzvah in order to perform the mitzvah in front of a larger crowd— ‫עם ברב‬.
The source for this is the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (6).

The Gemara there relates that the mitzvah of shofar should be performed during shacharis to fulfill
the requirement of performing a mitzvah early even though delaying the mitzvah until Mussaf will
allow the mitzvah to be performed in front of a larger crowd.

The reason is that only regarding something which beautifies the mitzvah directly, like a more
beautiful talis, can one argue that beautifying the mitzvah outweighs performing the mitzvah
earlier, but the advantage of performing a mitzvah in front of a larger crowd has no bearing on the
mitzvah directly, thus performing the mitzvah earlier takes priority. This issue has a direct bearing
on the question of whether one should delay the time of a bris milah to allow a larger crowd to
attend (7).

A certain Rav once asked the Chazon Ish, zt” l, a perplexing question. “The Mishnah in Megillah
20b lists twenty mitzvos that may be performed at any point during the day and still be considered

28
kosher. The Rambam, zt” l, mentions every single one of them in his Mishneh Torah, except for
tekias shofar, nor does he mention this important detail anywhere in that work.

Why was it excluded from the sefer? It is a Mishnah, and furthermore I have found no indication
of a different opinion anywhere. Chazal’s rationale seems very straightforward. We learn from
‘yom teruah’ that we may blow at any point during the entire day. I don’t understand why this
detail is missing!”

The Chazon Ish examined the problem and thought about it for a few minutes. His truncated
response was that it was simply missing. The questioner was shocked. “How can you say that?”
he exclaimed. “What does that mean: It is missing?” The Chazon Ish explained himself more
clearly. “The fact that the Rambam merited to write a concise guide explaining all of the oral Torah
is in itself inexplicable. We are forced to say that he had an exceptional measure of siyatta
d’shemaya. One should not ask how he missed something, but rather how he managed to cover
everything else!”

The Steipler Gaon, zt” l, explained this further. “For all of the Rambam’s thoroughness, one can
actually identify hundreds of halachos that ought to appear in the Mishneh Torah and are simply
not there. When I asked the Chazon Ish about this, he explained that the absence of certain details
does not indicate that the Rambam intended to exclude them because he objected to them. One
must realize that the Yad Chazakah was compiled over the course of many years, and the Rambam
added one halachah after the other.

As is well known, the Rambam was supported by his brother during the first part of his life as a
scholar. Tragically, his brother died and the Rambam was forced to become a doctor to support
himself. If the Rambam had had more time to devote to his seminal work, I am sure that we would
find all of these halachos explained. However, the special siyatta d’shemaya that the Rambam
received had a time limit!”

29
Rav Yitzchak Etshalom writes:7
Every year on Purim, Jews all over the world fulfill the Mitzvah of K'riat haMegillah - reading
the complete book of Esther from a proper scroll. Before beginning, the reader/leader proclaims
three B'rakhot - the middle of which is Birkat haNes (the blessing recited at the commemoration
of a mirale): Barukh...she'Asah Nissim la'Avoteinu baYamim haHeim baZ'man haZeh (Who
performed miracles for our ancestors in those days at this time [of year]). Considering that, unlike
the Exodus (and all other Biblical miracles), God's hand is nowhere to be found in the text of the
story of Esther and Mordechai, we have to wonder which miracle is the focus of this thanksgiving
to God? For which Nes are we praising God? (Parenthetically, the same question could be asked
in reference to Hannukah, where the most central "miracle" we celebrate is a military victory
which did not, from the accounts we have, include any miraculous intervention in the conventional
understanding of the word. To whatever extent this shiur answers the question vis-a-vis Purim,
that answer should carry the same validity for the Hannukah question. Significantly, Purim and
Hannukah are the two occasions when this B'rakhah is recited.)

A second question, certainly related to the first, focusses on one of the unique features of the
Megillah. As is well known, Esther is the only book in T'nakh with absolutely no mention of God
(by any Name). Much as the Midrash interprets some occurences of "the king" in Esther (e.g., 6:1)

7
https://etzion.org.il/en/holidays/purim/where-god-megilla

30
as a reference to God, this is certainly not p'shat. Why is this story even included in the Biblical
canon?
Before moving on, it is prudent to note that some approaches within Rabbinic literature see
"hidden Nissim (miracles)" throughout our story; these are, however, not evident from the p'shat.
In keeping with the general approach of this shiur, we will try to identify the Nes/Nissim within the
text of the Megillah.

In order to provide satisfactory answers to these two questions, we will have to address two issues
- the nature of a Nes and a new understanding of the story line in Megillat Esther.

II NES L'HITNOSES

The root of Nes is N-S-S - which means "banner". See, for instance, the verse in T'hillim [Psalms]
(60:6): "You have given those who fear You a Nes l'hitNoses - (a raised banner), to rally to it out
of bowshot."

A miracle (i.e., deliberate suspension of the laws of physics in order to save the righteous
individual or people) is a raising of the banner of God's Name in the world - hence the word Nes.
(See also B'resheet [Genesis] 22:1 and see if this approach explains Avraham's "trial" - see also
Midrash Rabbah ad loc.)

There is more than one way in which God's Name becomes glorified in this world. Besides an
overt intervention, it is possible for human beings to make His Name manifest by demonstrating
the most noble of traits. Keep in mind that we are all created in God's "Image" (whatever that may
mean...conscience, free will etc.). When we demonstrate the most noble side of human existence
and utilize those traits in the most productive manner possible, this is another (certainly more
subtle) demonstration of God's power and glory. It is possible for a Nes to take place within the
realm of human valor; although it should be stated that unless the people in question take the next
step and utilize this experience to enhance their direct relationship with God, it may be that the
whole enterprise would be considered a vain effort.

I would like to suggest that the two most noble human traits, each of which reflects the Tzelem
Elokim (Image of God) which sparks all of us, are Wisdom and Courage. I am not talking about
wisdom or courage in the usual sense; rather about a special kind of wisdom, a unique type of
courage and a special synthesis of the two. We will explore these two characteristics throughout
the story and clarify how each was utilized in the most productive and positive manner to bring
about the successful salvation of the Jews.

Instead of focusing on one or two passages in the Megillah, we're going to read through the whole
story and point out the key "Nes-points" along the way. You'll need a copy of the text - all citations,
unless otherwise noted, refer to chapters and verses within the Book of Esther.

As we read through, I will point out several other "layers" of the story - or, alternately, several
other ways to read the story and the various messages embedded in the text. As usual, we will be
reading the text alone; I will point out various Rabbinic interpolations and interpretations as needed
for support and illustration.

31
III CHAPTER 1

A) THE PARTY (1:1-1:8)

One other "layer" of the story is satiric; especially when viewed within the context of the rest of
T'nakh (as will be explained later), the text is a clear parody. Of what...we will see.

As the story opens, we meet our first player: Achashverosh. Although he is described as a powerful
king, ruling over 127 provinces from Hodu (India?) to Kush (Ethiopia?) - we soon find that his
power is more illusion than reality.

First of all, the party about which we read in the first chapter (1:3-8) seems to be his inaugaration
ball (see v. 2); yet it only takes place in the third year of his rule. This seems to indicate that the
transfer of power into his hands was not so smooth. We will soon see that plots abound in and
around his court and that his control over the realm is not very secure.

The description of the party brings three issues to the fore:

Achashverosh seems to be very insecure - both personally and politically. He spares no expense
to show off his wealth - and specifically invites the governors, ministers and soldiers of the Persian
and Medean armies. It seems that he is trying to consolidate his power and bring the military into
his good graces. At the end of his six-month party (!), he invites all the citizenry of Shushan to his
gala bash. This insecurity will increase and become a prominent feature in the events of the
Megillah.

B) VASHTI (1:9-22)

Vashti is not, properly speaking, a "player" in this narrative. She is much more of a foil, presented
as the set-up for the story to unfold. Even after she is gone (dead? exiled?), her shadow hangs over
the palace - but more on that later.

32
The first indication that Achashverosh's power is a lot of fluff is when he decides to show off his
beautiful queen (presumably to outshine the beauty of their wives) - and she refuses to come out!
This great king, protector of the realm, defender of the empire, ruler of persia, etc. etc. controls
nothing! His own queen refuses him and is not obeisant to his wishes. (Although in modern times
this would seem to prove nothing about his political power - in Persia of 2500 years ago, this
"failing" was quite telling - as we see from the tone of the letters sent out at the end of the first
chapter).

We soon learn something else about the king. For all of his power - he never makes any decisions
(is he passive-aggressive?). As a matter of fact, he doesn't ever say "no" to any of his advisors! A
strange king - a classic "yes-man" sitting on the throne.

We get some insight into how his advisors have learned to "play him". Memuchan (who the
Gemara identifies as Haman) knows that if he advises the king to kill (or banish) Vashti on account
of her defiance of the king - the drunk monarch may wake up on the morn and feel foolish and
humiliated that he had to exile the queen for his own honor - and take out his anger on Memuchan.
In order to get the king to "get rid" of Vashti, Memuchan appeals to Achashverosh's sense of
justice. He is the defender of men's rights throughout the kingdom and must act decisively on
behalf of all the poor princes and governers throughout the Empire whose wives will surely rebel,
following Vashti's (unpunished) lead. By appealing to Achashverosh's sense of nobility, the wise
advisor allows the king to do what he wants without feeling a sense of humiliation.

Two more notes about the first chapter. First of all, as the Gemara points out, this first set of letters
(v. 22) seems to be quite foolish. The king sends out letters to every province, announcing that
every man rules in his own house!!???! (According to the Gemara, this caused the second letters -
announcing the "loosing" of Jewish blood - to be taken less seriously by the citizenry who already
case a jaundiced eye on this king's pronouncements).

Second, as R. David Hentschke points out (Megadim vol. 23), the kings have to send these letters
to each province in their own language (v. 22 - this phrasing shows up several times in the
Megillah). As powerful as the king may be, he hasn't been successful in establishing Persian as the
language of the realm; perhaps his rule is not so ironclad as it might seem (reminds us a bit of the
USSR???).

IV CHAPTER 2

A) A NEW QUEEN (2:1-4)

We are quickly reminded of Achashverosh's inability to decide anything for himself. It takes his
servants to suggest finding a new queen by gathering all of the maidens to Shushan for a "tryout"
with the king.

33
As any student of T'nakh remembers, such a call went out once before - when David was old and
near death. As we read in the beginning of Melakhim (Kings), they searched for a young maiden
throughout Yisra'el - and found Avishag haShunamit. Note the contrast - whereas the one girl was
found (although many undoubtedly would have wanted to be chosen); here, all the girls have to be
forcibly brought to Shushan (note the wording in v. 3). And why not...who would want follow
Vashti?

There is another interesting allusion in v. 3: The phrase v'Yafked haMelekh P'kidim

v'Yik'b'tzu reminds us of a nearly similar phrase used in the first "Jew in the foreign court" story.
When Yosef successfully interprets Pharaoh's dreams, he advises that Pharaoh appoint officers to
collect the wheat of the seven plentiful years - Ya'aseh Pharaoh v'Yafked
P'kidim...v'Yik'b'tzu... (B'resheet 41:34-35). This allusion is not for naught; the Ba'al haMegillah
is showing us how Achashverosh and his servants viewed these young girls - just like wheat to be
collected and brought to the palace.

B) MORDECHAI AND ESTHER (2:5-20)

We are immediately introduced to our two heroes - Mordechai and Esther. It is critical to note that
both of these names are not only Persian (and not Hebrew) - but they are also both pagan names
related to various gods of the pantheon! The Esther-Ishtar-Astarte connection is well-documented
(besides the fact that the Megillah explicitly gives her "real" name - Hadassah); our heroine is
named for the goddess of fertility. The Gemara (BT Menahot 65) gives Mordechai a more "Jewish"
name - Petah'ya - and, again, the Mordechai-Marduk (god of creation in many mythologies
throughout the Near East) connection has been extensively written up.

Why do these two righteous people, through whom God saves His people, have such names?

Even more curious is Mordechai's insistence that Esther does not reveal her identity (as a Jewess)
while in the palace (v10, 20). As we shall soon see, even Mordechai's identity was not obvious; he
was not distinguished in any external way from any other citizen.

There are a couple of verses which are telling within the scope of Esther's successful entrance into
the palace.

34
 C) THE PLOT (2:21-23)

As we all know, this little paragraph is critical to the later success of our heroes. Note, however,
that it is Achashverosh's own guards - who are charged with defending him - who are plotting
against him. This kingdom is, indeed, unstable and always ready for a shake-up.

V CHAPTER 3

A) ENTER HAMAN (3:1-7)

Suddenly - and very much out of the blue - Haman is elevated to a position of importance in the
kingdom. This again demonstrates - despite the appearance of Dat - the helter-skelter way in which
power and impotence, success and failure - even life and death - are handled most capriciously in
the palace.

As much as we know about Achashverosh's terrible insecurity - we quickly learn about Haman's
personal devil - his ego. Imagine that the king of the greatest empire on earth has just appointed a
relative nobody (as it seems Haman was beforehand) to be grand vizier and that all citizens should
pay him homage. Wouldn't he be too enthralled with the sudden attention and respect to care about
one or two people who don't bow down? Not Haman - his ego just takes him right past all the knee-
benders and focusses his attention on the one person who refuses to bow - Mordechai. As much as
we would expect him to be happy with the new position - he is merely enraged (and seemingly
obsessed with that rage) at Mordechai.

Note that it isn't obvious to Haman that Mordechai is Jewish - Haman has to find that out from
someone else in order to figure out which nation to destroy (as he wants to annihilate all of
Mordechai's people. By the way, this paints Haman as much less of an ideological anti-semite than
we are used to thinking - but that belongs to another shiur.) Evidently, Mordechai's behavior - or,
at least his dress and external demeanor - did not mark him as a Jew. Just like his niece, he seems
to have been quite assimilated (see the Book of Ezra for more background on this phenomenon).

35
Now - Haman, the grand vizier of the kingdom of Dat, decides to wipe out an entire nation due to
the slight to his ego. How does he decide when to do it? By lottery (Pur)! What a joke
this Dat proves to be!

B) ACHASHVEROSH AND HAMAN (3:8-15)

There isn't a whole lot say here; the dialogue between these two speaks for itself. Although
everything is done properly, the reader instinctively feels that a king who is willing to condemn a
people without even finding out who they are (read 3:8-11 carefully) is not doing a good job of
running his empire.

In order to keep an eye on the story, let's put together the chronology of events. The king's party
(Vashti's farewell bash) took place in the third year of his reign. Esther was crowned - and
Mordechai saved the king's life - in the seventh year. Haman had the letters (allowing the anti-
semites to kill the Jews) sent out on Nissan 13 in the twelfth year of the king's reign. In other
words, Esther has been queen for a bit more than four years by this time - and her identity was still
a total secret.

VI CHAPTER 4

A) ESTHER AND MORDECHAI (4:1-17)

We are immediately reminded of how capricious this king really is. The beloved queen hasn't seen
the king in thirty days (v. 11) (and probably wonders in whose arms he sleeps tonight) - and even
she is subject to death if she comes to him unbeckoned unless he agrees to see her (shades of Vashti
again)!

At this point, Mordechai sends the message which turns Esther around - and she begins to
demonstrate not only her tremendous commitment and courage to her nation; but also, an amazing
type of wisdom - those very characteristics which reflect her Tzelem Elokim in the most powerful
way.

36
Mordechai told her about the B'rit (covenant) between God and the B'nei Yisra'el. We are promised
that we will outlive all of the Hamans - but that B'rit only applies to the nation as a whole, not to
individuals or families. Esther - you may make it through this next upheaval - and you may not. In
any case, the Jews will be saved, as God always has His ways of keeping the B'rit.
Esther realizes the wisdom and truth of this argument and acquiesces to Mordechai's plea. Now,
she plans her strategy...let's take a peek behind the scenes. First, a few words about this remarkable
type of wisdom.

It is natural to see everything in life through the eyes of our experience. This is why honest people
often find it difficult to disbelieve others or question their motivations; they cannot recognize the
lie in the other person's words because they have no such possibility inside of their own hearts. In
the same way, kind people often ascribe positive motives to questionable behavior of others -
because they could never recognize mean thoughts in others as they have no such thoughts in their
own persona.

It takes a tremendous type of wisdom to separate yourself from what you instinctively feel and
how you usually view the world and to see it from the other person's perspective. While this may
be easy in a sympathetic conversation (although not nearly as easy as it seems); it is most difficult
when deciding how to fight an enemy. The trick is to learn how to think like the enemy - without
becoming the enemy.

This was perhaps the greatest miracle of Hannukah - that the Maccabees were able to think like
Greeks (it certainly took great strategy to outfox that mighty army with a small band) - without
becoming Greeks (well, not for a couple of generations at least).

In the same way, we will see how Esther manipulates Achashverosh and Haman into a fateful (and,
for Haman, fatal) collision course - simply by playing them according to their own personalities
and weaknesses.

VII CHAPTER 5

A) ESTHER AND ACHASHVEROSH (5:1-5)

37
Instead, she invites Achashverosh and Haman to a special party she has prepared for that very
evening. Why didn't she ask for salvation at this point?

Esther understood a great deal about politics. Remember - she hasn't seen the king for thirty days.
Even if she is still his favorite - she is still not on the "inside" right now. Haman, on the other hand,
has just had a drinking party with the king (3 days earlier), celebrating their letters sent out to kill
the Jews. If she were to accuse Haman, the king might not believe her and the whole effort would
be lost.

She invites the two of them to a party. As disgusting as the prospect sounds, it is the first step in a
brilliant plan of psychological warfare.

Let's consider how each of them would react to this invitation:

B) THE FIRST PARTY (5:6-8)

At this party, the king expects to find out what Esther really has on her mind - maybe his suspicions
were for naught? Instead, she surprises him by asking him to return - with Haman - for another
party the next night!

38
Following the psychological makeup of our two-party guests - each of the states of mind described
above became exacerbated.

Esther knew that Haman's ego would continue to grow - and she also knew that he would leave
the palace via the gate - and see Mordechai sitting there. Just feed his ego - and he will self-destruct.

C) HAMAN AT HOME (9-14)

Indeed, Haman becomes so enraged when he sees Mordechai that, after a short bragging session
with his family, he runs back to the palace to ask Achashverosh to allow him to hang Mordechai
immediately. He cannot wait eleven months to kill his arch-nemesis - he needs satisfaction right
away (ah, the impetuous egotist.)

VIII CHAPTER 6

A) HAMAN AND ACHASHVEROSH (6:1-10)

Just as the king discovers that he owes Mordechai a favor from over four years ago - and decides
that the way to gain the allegiance of the citizenry is to publicly demonstrate the rewards of loyalty
to the crown - Haman turns up in the outer courtyard of the palace. The king had to wonder what
Haman was doing there so late at night (!?!) The king summoned Haman for some advice - and
for a chance to take him down a peg or two. Now, the king demonstrates some acumen of his own.

In 6:6, the king asks Haman what to do for someone he really favors. Haman, that old egotist, is
so caught up in his own power, that he describes a truly regal parade which he assumes will feature
him as the honoree. How very surprised he is when the king orders him to take the self-same
Mordechai and lead him on the king's horse.8

8
Note that the phrase to be called out while leading this honoree: Kakhah ye'Aseh la'Ish Asher... shows up in one other place in
T'nakh. This is the beginning of the formula of Halitza - the refusal of Levirate marriage, which accompanies the woman's disdainful
spit. [D'varim 25:9] Draw your own conclusions about the satiric effect accomplished by the Ba'al haMegillah

39
 B) HAMAN AND MORDECHAI (6:11-14)

Haman returns to his house "in mourning". The Rabbis have a lot to say about the events of this
morning - but, even on a p'shat level, it is clear that Haman's fortunes have taken a significant turn
for the worse. He is quickly rushed to the second party - and, in his case, his own farewell.

IX CHAPTER 7

A) THE SECOND PARTY (7:1-9)

Now, she pulls out all the cards. The king thinks that she and Haman are hatching a plot against
him (and have been having an affair?) - and suddenly Haman is revealed as the villian who is
plotting against her. Haman thinks that he is still on the road to satisfaction in the matter of the
Jews; he'll just need to wait until Adar. He has no idea that Esther is one of "them".

Esther points to Haman and all is lost. The confusion and anger of the king, the confusion and fear
of Haman - create an emotional jumble which ultimately leads to the king's explosion when he
finds Haman lying on Esther's divan, begging for mercy. Haman is erased and (here we go again)
Mordechai takes his place (compare 8:2 with 3:10). The capricious king has (for the meantime)
elevated the Jews and they are saved. We all know, however, that the happy ending of the story
isn't permanent and that the rocky shores of existence in exile (which is probably one of the sub-
messages of the Megillah) are not safe for Jews.

X POSTSCRIPT

We have taken a cursory look at some of the events as described in the Megillah and found that
Esther displayed extraordinary wisdom and courage in her successful effort to save her people. We
are very right to regard this as a Nes as it reflects God's Image as found within our heroine. God's
Name is not found - because, unlike Pesach, this is not a story about the suspension of the laws of
nature. It is, rather, a story about human strength and nobility used in the most positive and
productive effort imaginable - the salvation of Am Yisra'el. (That and a really great satire of the
Persian Kingdom)

40
 What’s the Truth About . . . Reading the Megillah on Purim
Morning?
RABBI DR. ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY writes:9

Misconception: Of the two Megillah readings on Purim, the one at night is the more important
one. Therefore, one should be careful to attend the nighttime reading even if he or she will thereby
miss the morning reading.

Halachically, the morning reading is more important than the night reading.

Background: The Shulchan Aruch (OC 687:1; 689:1) rules that on Purim, men and women1 are
obligated to hear Megillat Esther twice—once at night and once during the day. This is based on
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement (Megillah 4a): “Megillat Esther must be read at night and
repeated during the day.” The Talmud cites two verses that allude to the obligation to have two
readings (Psalms 22:3; 30:13).2 Tosafot (Megillah 4a, s.v. “chayav adam”) offers three
indications3 for the primacy of the morning reading: 1) the language of the first-cited
verse (Psalms 22:3);4 2) the main mitzvah of pirsumei nissa (publicizing the miracle) is during the
day and 3) consistency with the other mitzvot of Purim, such as seudah (holiday meal), mishloach
manot and matanot l’evyonim, all of which can only be fulfilled during the day. The Aruch

9
https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-the-truth-about-reading-the-megillah-on-purim-morning/

41
Hashulchan (OC 687:2) notes that in addition to Tosafot, the Rosh and Ran explicitly state that the
daytime reading is more important. The Aruch Hashulchan (687:3) states that the Rambam agrees
that the daytime reading is the more important one, despite his ruling not to recite Shehecheyanu
over the daytime Megillah reading. Rokeach (Hilchot Berachot 363, p. 254), however, opines that
the nighttime reading is primary.

The Noda B’Yehudah (Kamma, OC 41, cited by Sha’arei Teshuvah, OC 687) suggests that the
nighttime reading of the Megillah is rabbinic in nature while the daytime reading is based on divrei
kabbalah, a prophetic tradition, which in some ways is treated as Biblical law (see Rosh Hashanah
19a). The Pnei Yehoshua (Megillah 4a, s.v. “chayav”) explains that the main reading takes place
during the day because that is when the miracle of the Jewish victory occurred (battles are not
fought at night). He categorizes the nighttime reading as a “mitzvah b’alma”—a “mere” mitzvah.5
The Peri Megadim suggests that the original enactment by Mordechai and Esther was to read the
Megillah during the day only, and the requirement to read it at night was instituted at a later date
(Aishel Avraham 692:2).

When the mishnah (Megillah 2:5-6) lists mitzvot that apply during the day and those that apply at
night, it lists the reading of the Megillah on the daytime list only. The Binyan Shlomo (58) sees
this as evidence that in the Mishnaic period, there was no nighttime reading of the Megillah. He
posits that the nighttime reading is a rabbinic enactment of the Amora Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
If this is indeed the case, for the first 600 years of Purim celebrations, there was no nighttime
reading of the Megillah! Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi 2:120) rejects Binyan Shlomo’s
position.

The Ran (Megillah, p. 1 in Rif pages) draws upon the difference in obligation between the
nighttime and daytime readings of the Megillah to posit a surprisingly lenient position. The first
mishnah in Megillah offers village dwellers the option of reading the Megillah on the 11th, 12th
or 13th of Adar, whichever fell on the Monday or Thursday preceding Purim, when the villagers
went into the city for market day. (The villagers relied on the more educated city dwellers to read
the Megillah for them.) The Ran notes that this arrangement only provides for the day reading;
how did the villagers read the Megillah at night? He suggests that possibly, as part of the special
leniency granted to them, villagers were absolved from the obligation to read the Megillah at night.

Assuming the daytime reading is more important, should one who will only be able to hear one of
the two readings try to hear the daytime one? The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 687:3) reasons that one
should not pass over a mitzvah; therefore, when the opportunity to hear the Megillah reading at
night presents itself, one is not permitted to neglect it.

Three berachot are recited prior to the nighttime Megillah reading: Al mikrah megillah, She’asah
nissim and Shehecheyanu. In the daytime, it makes sense to recite the first two blessings again,
but why repeat Shehecheyanu? Some say that due to the significance of the daytime reading,
Ashkenazim6 repeat the Shehecheyanu blessing in the morning.7 Sephardim follow the Rambam,8
who rules that Shehecheyanu is not repeated. Magen Avraham (692:1) advises that when reciting
Shehecheyanu for the morning reading, one should have in mind the other daytime mitzvot, such
as mishloach manot.

Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik suggests a novel reason for reciting the daytime Shehecheyanu
(Mesorah 18 [Tishrei 5762]: 57-59). The Talmud (Megillah 14a), followed by the Rambam

42
(Hilchot Chanukah 3:10), explains that Hallel is not recited on Purim because the Megillah reading
takes its place. Since Hallel can only be recited during the day (Megillah 20b), the Shehecheyanu
recited at the daytime reading applies to the Hallel-like aspect of the Megillah.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, the Meiri (Megillah 14) rules that if one does not have a
Megillah, he should recite Hallel instead. Rav Soloveitchik disagrees and advises against reciting
Hallel. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef (cited along with many other sources in Yalkut Yosef 5 [5748] p.
303) rules that in such a case, Hallel should be recited but without a berachah. In a fascinating
corollary, the Peri Megadim (OC, Aishel Avraham 693:2) reasons that on Shabbat of Purim
Meshulash, when the Megillah is not read, Hallel should be recited. (Purim Meshulash is a three-
day Purim experience celebrated in Yerushalayim when the fifteenth of Adar [Shushan Purim]
falls out on Shabbat.) After a lengthy discussion, Dayan Yitzchak Weiss (Minchat Yitzchak 8:64)
concludes against reciting Hallel on Shabbat of Purim Meshulash. Rabbi Sraya Duvlitsky (Purim
Meshulash, p. 102-3, unnumbered addendum at end) discusses whether someone who did not hear
Megillah on Friday of Purim Meshulash should say Hallel on Shabbat. He concludes that he should
say it, but without a berachah.

When Purim, Sukkot or Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat, the mitzvah of the holiday (Megillah,
lulav or shofar) is cancelled by rabbinic decree. According to the Talmud, this is because everyone
wanted to do these mitzvot, but they didn’t necessarily know how. The rabbis were afraid that
someone might inadvertently carry a Megillah, shofar or lulav to the rabbi’s house Friday night to
learn how to properly perform the mitzvah and thus violate the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat.

Why did the rabbis not cancel the mitzvah of matzah when Pesach falls out on Shabbat? Rabbi
Tzvi Pesach Frank (Mikraei Kodesh, vol. 2 [5736] p. 50) suggests that it is because lulav and
shofar are mitzvot performed during the day, giving an individual time to receive instruction at
night.9 But since the mitzvah of matzah takes place at night, there is no time to receive such
instruction! Megillah, however, also takes place at night. Why then is the mitzvah of Megillah
cancelled when Purim Meshulash occurs? Rabbi Frank answers that the Megillah reading is
cancelled because the nighttime reading is of lesser significance, as the divrei kabbalah
requirement applies in the day only.

Rav Soloveitchik (Hararei Kedem, Vol. 1, p. 334-335), based on the Netziv (introduction to
Ha’emek Davar, ot bet), offers a fascinating explanation for the two Megillah readings. He
explains that the “real” holiday of Purim doesn’t start until the daytime. Hence, Rabbi Yehoshua
ben Levi’s directive is not that one must read the Megillah during the night and in the day; rather,
one must “read the Megillah and then repeat it.” The night reading is merely “preparation” for the
daytime reading. Chazal instituted that the Megillah be read at night so that during the daytime
reading people will pay more attention because they have already had the preparatory reading the
night before.10

Notes
1. In some communities there is an erroneous practice of women not hearing the morning reading of the Megillah. Rabbi Yosef
Messas (Mayim Chaim, p. 211) was troubled by this and offered two weak justifications for this custom. (I thank Rabbi Aryeh
Frimer for this source.)

2. The first verse relates today and night as two separate components, while the second implies that the two readings are actually
one long continuous mitzvah. Indeed, Rav Soloveitchik understands the Rambam as saying that the two Megillah readings are one

43
long mitzvah (Hararei Kedem, vol. 1 [5760], p. 330). If that is so, questions might arise regarding a person who missed the nighttime
reading, similar to the questions raised about one who misses a day in counting the Omer.

3. See also the Rosh (Megillah, ch. 1, 6) for additional reasons.

4. It is possible to misinterpret the Talmudic language that is found almost verbatim in Sofrim 14:18 and SA, OC 687:1, to imply
the opposite. The use of the word “repeated” might be seen as implying that it is merely a repeat, a less significant performance of
the mitzvah performed the previous night.

5. Former Chief Rabbi of Israel Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, following a minority opinion, opined that the nighttime reading is also
“divrei kabbalah” (see Rabbi Moshe Harari, Mikraei Kodesh: Hilchot Purim, 3rd ed., p. 73).

6. Rema, OC 692:1. See Chayei Adam 155:24 and the long note there. Note that the Breuer community does not recite this berachah
during the daytime reading. Similarly, it does not recite it when blowing the shofar on the second day of Rosh Hashanah.

7. The Pnei Yehoshua (Megillah 4a, s.v. “chayav”) posits that the Shehecheyanu recited before the Megillah reading at night is for
the holiday itself, while the Shehecheyanu said before the daytime reading is for the reading of the Megillah. The Meiri (Megillah
ch. 1, s.v. “chayav”) says that Shehecheyanu is not recited for the holiday of Purim itself. The MA (692:2) and Rabbi Ovadiah
Yosef agree and rule that if one does not have a Megillah, he does not recite Shehecheyanu because the berachah was instituted
over the Megillah reading, not over the holiday. (Yabia Omer 6; OC 42:2; cited with many sources in Yalkut Yosef 5 [5748] p.
303.) Rabbi Yaakov Emden (Siddur of Rabbi Yaakov Emden, Birchat Hamegillah 5) says that if one does not have a Megillah, he
should recite Shehecheyanu over wine at the seudah. The Mishnah Berurah (692:1 and Biur Halachah there) is undecided about
the issue.

8. Shulchan Aruch, OC 692:1, based on Hilchot Megillah 1:3.

9. For other solutions, see Ma’adanei Asher—Inyanei Chag HaPesach (5772), 103-104, where he cites, among others, Shu”t Shoel
U’mashiv Mahadura 4, 1:5; the Netziv, Haemek She’eilah, She’ilta 67:21; and Pnei Yehoshua, end of Sukkah.

10. Based on this reasoning, one could suggest that one who missed the nighttime reading should read the Megillah twice during
the day, not as a make-up reading but because a prior reading is necessary in order to have the required in-depth reading of the
Megillah. The idea that the second reading should result in greater understanding of the Megillah is possibly alluded to in the
statement by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. In stating that the Megillah should be repeated, he uses a word that can also mean “studied,”
perhaps indicating that it should be listened to during the morning reading with greater focus.

The Birchei Yosef (OC 687) quotes those who say that if one missed the nighttime reading, he should read the Megillah twice
during the day as tashlumin, a makeup. He disagrees, asserting that tashlumin does not apply to Megillah reading, and thus there is
no need for two daytime readings.

Z'manim Explained

44
Rabbi Jack Abramowitz writes:10

Z'manim (times) are important in Jewish life. They tell us when different mitzvos can be
performed, from donning tefillin in the morning to observing Shabbos and holidays.
But z'manim can also be confusing! Big mincha? Little mincha? Plag? What are all these things?
And when looking at a list of times, how is one to know what time a fast start and ends? Wouldn't
it be great if one could easily figure these things out?

Now you can! OU Torah has compiled the following charts explaining what all the different times
are and what happens at each time - when to put on tallis and tefillin, when to recite Shema, when
to start Shabbos, when a fast ends, and more. What's more, you can download attractive PDFs of
these charts in your choice of pronunciation - Ashkenaz or Sephardi! These charts can help you to
familiarize yourself with what each z'man is - use them in conjunction with the OU's online daily
calendar! (Remember to set the calendar to your location!)

In addition to the downloadable PDFs, the text of the charts appears below. (As always, please
consult your own rabbi regarding matters of practical halacha.)

Z'MANIM – DAY

Alos HaShachar (Alot Hashachar) – Dawn or daybreak. This is the time when some sunlight
starts to be visible on the horizon. Under Torah law, any mitzvah that must be performed by day
(shofar, lulav, megillah, etc.) can be performed at alos hashachar; rabbinically, the performance of
these mitzvos is generally delayed until sunrise. Communal fasts begin at alos hashachar
(excluding Yom Kippur and Tisha b’Av, which begin at sunset of the preceding nights).

Misheyakir – “When one can recognize.” Specifically, this is when it is light enough for a person
to recognize a casual acquaintance (as opposed to a close friend) from a distance of four cubits
(about 6 feet). This is the earliest time for one to put on tallis and tefillin, and to recite Shema.

Haneitz HaChama – Sunrise. This is when the top of the sun (as opposed to just its light) becomes
visible at sea level. This is the earliest time to recite Shemoneh Esrei (barring extenuating
circumstances that may permit one to recite it earlier) and to perform mitzvos in which one is
obligated by day (shofar, lulav, etc.). [Many people mistakenly refer to this time as “neitz.” The
word is “haneitz”; the “ha” is part of the word, not the prefix meaning “the.”]

Sof Z’man Kriyas Shema (Sof Z’man Kriyat Shema) – “The latest time to recite Shema.” This
is three halachic hours into the day, which is the time when people of luxury would arise. While
this is the latest time one may fulfill the Biblical requirement to recite Shema, one who did not do
so should nevertheless recite Shema until chatzos.
Sof Z’man Tefillah - “The latest time to recite Shemoneh Esrei.” This is four halachic hours into
the day. (See note on “Shaos Z’manios” for the explanation of a “halachic hour.”) As with Shema,
if one did not recite Shemoneh Esrei by this time, he should still do so until chatzos. On Passover
eve, this is the latest time one may eat chometz.

10
https://outorah.org/p/41921/

45
Sof Z’man Biur Chometz— “The latest time to remove chometz.” This is five halachic hours
into the day. On the eve of Passover, all of one’s chometz must have been sold or destroyed by
this time. After this, one may no longer derive benefit from chometz.

Chatzos (Chatzot) – Noon or midday. Technically, this is chatzos hayom, “halachic noon,” the
midpoint of the day. There is also a chatzos halailah, halachic midnight. This is halfway between
sunrise and sunset (or between daybreak and nightfall), and it need not coincide with 12:00 noon.
Chatzos is the latest time one may recite the morning prayer service. One should make Kiddush
and eat before this time on Shabbos and yom tov (excluding Rosh Hashana). On Tisha b'Av, one
may sit on a chair after chatzos. The restrictions of the Nine Days last until chatzos on the day after
Tisha b’Av.

Mincha Gedolah – “Greater mincha” or “large mincha.” This is one half-hour after chatzos. This
is the earliest time at which one may recite mincha, the afternoon prayer service. On Yom Kippur,
when the service is very long, one should make sure to begin musaf before mincha gedolah in
order to avoid a conflict with the obligation to recite mincha.

Ten Hours – On erev Shabbos and erev yom tov, one should not start a meal at the beginning of
the tenth halachic hour into the day (i.e., three hours before sunset).

Mincha Ketana – “Lesser mincha” or “small mincha.” This is two and a half halachic hours before
sunset. According to some authorities, it is preferable to recite the mincha prayer after the time of
mincha ketana.

Plag HaMincha – Or simply plag mincha, “half of mincha.” This is the midpoint between mincha
ketana and sunset, which is one and a quarter halachic hours before the end of the day. Plag
hamincha is the earliest time one may light candles and start Shabbos or light candles for Chanukah
on a Friday (since one may not do so after nightfall). If one recited mincha before the time of plag
hamincha, then maariv (the evening prayer service) may be recited as early as plag hamincha. (One
must make sure to repeat the Shema after nightfall.)

46
Z'MANIM – NIGHT

Hadlakas Neiros (Licht Bentchen) – “Candle-lighting time.” On Fridays, Shabbos candles must
be lit somewhat before sundown. In the United States, 18 minutes before sunset is the prevalent
practice; in Jerusalem, 40 minutes before sunset is common.

Shkiyas Hachama – Or simply shkiyah, sunset. This is when the sun is no longer visible above
the horizon. This is the end of the day in Jewish law. For example, if the day was Tuesday, 12
Sivan, at shkiyah it would become Wednesday, 13 Sivan, even though the secular day would
remain Tuesday until midnight. (Technically, shkiyah is the start of a period of doubt between
days – see “Bein HaShmashos.”) All mitzvos that are to be performed by day should be completed
by shkiyah. Mincha should be recited prior to shkiyah, though if one did not do so, he may still
recite mincha after shkiyah. Maariv may be recited.

Bein Hashmashos – Twilight. This is the time between sunset and nightfall. It’s a doubt as to
whether this period is to be considered day or night so mitzvos that must be performed by day
must be completed by bein hashmashos, while mitzvos that must be performed at night may not
be performed until after nightfall. Because bein hashmashos is a period of doubt, one must observe
the stringencies of both days during this time period. For this reason, Shabbos begins before bein
hashmashos on Friday and ends after bein hashmashos on Saturday. For similar reasons, a baby
born during this time will be circumcised on the ninth day.

Tzeis Hakochavim – “When the stars come out,” i.e., nightfall. This is when three medium-sized
stars can be seen with the naked eye. At this time, one may perform mitzvos that must be performed
at night, including reciting Shema, counting the Omer, lighting Chanukah candles, starting the
Seder, etc. Fast days end at this time (except for Yom Kippur – see Motzoei Shabbos). It is
preferable that Maariv, the evening prayer service, be recited after tzeis hakochavim.

Motzoei Shabbos – The conclusion of Shabbos. There is a mitzvah to add additional time onto
Shabbos and yom tov. These days are ended when a cluster of three small stars can be seen and
there is no redder in the western night sky. One common practice in the U.S. is to end Shabbos
and yom tov 42 minutes after sunset; other common practices include 50 minutes and 72 minutes
after sunset. (There are numerous other practices; consult your own rabbi for guidance in this area.)

Chatzos Halailah – Midnight. The midpoint between sunset and sunrise. All mitzvos that must
be performed at night (such as reciting the Shema) may technically be performed the entire night
but the Sages of the Talmud instituted that people should perform them by midnight in order to
avoid falling asleep and neglecting them. On Pesach, the afikomen should be eaten before chatzos.
Some people arise at this time to recite Tikkun Chatzot, a series of prayers lamenting the
destruction of the Temple.

Shaos Z’manios – Z’manim use special hours called shaos z’manios. These are calculated by
dividing the daylight hours into 12 parts – either from daybreak to nightfall (according to the
Magen Avraham) or from sunrise to sunset (according to the Vilna Gaon). The hours are longer in

47
the summer and shorter in the winter. We have translated shaos z’manios as “halachic hours”, but
people also call them “seasonal hours” or “proportional hours.”

In the beginning G-d created heaven and earth. And the earth was chaotic and
void, with darkness on the face of the depths… And G-d said, “Let there be light,”
and there was light…
And G-d called the light “day” and the darkness He called “night.” And it was
evening, and it was morning—one day.
Genesis 1:1-5

Rabbi Yanke Tauber writes:11

“First came darkness, then light,” says the Talmud, 1 summarizing what is perhaps the most basic
law of life, and the spiritual meaning of day and night.

So, it was when the world came into being. As related in the opening verses of the Torah, G-d first
created a dark and chaotic world, into which He subsequently introduced light by decree of His
creating word.

So, it is with every individual life. We all enter the world in the dark: ignorant, uncomprehending,
barely aware of our surroundings. Then begins the slow process of learning to recognize the world
we live in, comprehend its significance, and ultimately generate our own light to illuminate and
enlighten it. 2

11
https://www.meaningfullife.com/spiritual-meaning-of-day-and-night/

48
Even the Torah, G-d’s blueprint for creation and His guide to life on earth, follows the model of
“first darkness, then light.” The Torah consists of two basic components: the “Written Torah” (the
Pentateuch, also called the “Five Books of Moses”), and the “Oral Torah”—a system of laws,
rules, and techniques for interpretation given to Moses and handed down through the generations.
The Written Torah contains the whole of the divine communication to man; but much of it is
hidden, implicit within an extra word, a turn of phrase or a nuanced comparison between two other
laws. So, the Torah, as G-d spoke it and Moses wrote it, is a closed book; it is only by a lengthy
and toilsome process of study and exegesis that its life-illuminating wisdom can be deciphered.
G-d could just as easily have created a light-flooded world, had us emerge from the womb as
mature and informed beings, and given us a Torah in which everything is explicitly spelled out.
But he desired a world in which “first came darkness, then light”—in which order is preceded by
chaos, knowledge by ignorance, and bliss by toil and struggle.

The Day

When G-d created time, He ingrained the “darkness first” law into the structure of time’s most
basic component—the day.

“Six days G-d created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them,” states the Torah, “and
He rested on the seventh day.” 3 Chassidic teaching points out that the verse does not say that G-d
created the world in six days, but that “Six days G-d created,” as if to say that the created reality
consists of these six days.

Indeed, according to the Kabbalah, the whole of creation is comprised of six basic spiritual
elements—chessed, gevurah, tiferet, netzach, hod and yesod 4 —deriving from six corresponding
divine attributes (sefirot) and embodied by the six days of creation. A seventh
element, malchut, 5 is embodied by Shabbat, completing the seven-day cycle of motion and rest,
creation and withdrawal, by which the world was brought into being and by which it continues to
exist.

The day, then, is more than a measure of time. It is a component of time, which is comprised of
the seven basic elements that underlie the whole of creation. Ultimately, the whole of time consists
of seven days only; each week is a repetition (though on a more advanced level) of the original
seven-day cycle of creation. 6

And each day consists of an “evening” and a “morning,” of a darkness-shrouded night followed
by luminous daytime hours. In the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall and ends at nightfall,
following the model of the original days of creation (“And it was evening, and it was morning—
one day… And it was evening, and it was morning—a second day,” etc.). For each of the seven
time-qualities is conceived in the womb of darkness, chaos and strife before emerging into the
light of day.

49
The Night Revealed

Yet evening and morning comprise “one day”—a single, integral unit of time.
Ostensibly, the daytime hours of a specific day seem to have less in common with the night that
precedes them than with the daylight hours of a different day: a glance out the window will tell
you if it is night or day, but not if it’s Sunday or Monday. In essence, however, the night and day
of the same 24-hour day share a unique quality which sets them apart from the other six days
ordained at the creation.

Thus, in the “World to Come”—the future world that is the culminative state of creation—the
“night will be as luminous as day.” 7 Yet the seven days of the week will remain distinct
components of G-d’s creation, each revealing another aspect of the divine reality.

In other words, the differences between the seven days of creation are intrinsic and eternal, while
the difference between night and day is superficial and transitory. For night is but the embryo of
the day—the means to its end, the process to its product. While the process is still underway, the
two seem worlds apart: the night dark where the day is bright, obscure where it is lucid, trying
where it is tranquil. But when the process reaches its culmination, the night will be revealed as an
integral part of the day’s harmony and luminescence.

While the process is still underway, we experience it as a struggle, as a journey through a dark and
threatening place. But when we reach our destination, the journey will be revealed for what it truly
was: a progression toward the light of day. A night whose every setback and frustration serves to
enhance the preciousness of the day to follow, brightening its light and deepening its tranquillity.12

NOTES

1.Shabbat 77b.

2.Indeed, our sages tell us that “when the child is in his mother’s womb… it is taught the entire Torah… but the moment it emerges
into the world, an angel comes and slaps it on the mouth, making it forget the entire Torah” (Talmud, Niddah 30b). The chassidic
masters explain that, ultimately, the Torah, being the wisdom and will of G-d, cannot be fathomed by man, unless it is taught to
him from Above. Yet G-d wanted that our every achievement should be ours alone, attained by our own effort and toil. Thus, were
dispatched into this world in ignorance, denuded of all we have learned prior to birth; but the fact that we had once known the
entire Torah enables us to now learn it on our own (see Likkutei Torah, Shelach 44a, et al).

3.Exodus 20:11.

4.Roughly: love, restraint, beauty, ambition, humility and bonding.

12
Based on the Rebbe’s talks on Sukkot 5711 (1950), Shabbat Bereishit 5751 (1990) and on other occasions. 8 Adapted from the
teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe by Yanki Tauber.

50
5.Regality or receptiveness

6.Thus, in the Holy Tongue, Sunday is called yom rishon, “the first day,” Monday is yom sheini, “the second day,” and so on. For
every Sunday is, in truth, “the first day,” espite the fact that millions of days of physical time have passed since the original “first
day.”

7.Psalms 139:12.

8.Torat Menachem—Hitvaaduyot 5711, vol. I, pp. 23-25; Sefer HaSichot 5751, vol. I, pp. 63-65; Igrot Kodesh, vol. III, p. 480.

Levi Cooper writes:13

The tractate Berachot opens with a discussion of the earliest and latest time for the recital of the
evening Shema (M. Berachot 1:1). The Talmud immediately questions the context of this
statement, wondering why the sages did not begin with the times for the morning Shema, which
must be read earlier in the day (B. Berachot 2a).

The Talmud explains the structure by citing two biblical verses. The first passage of Shema speaks
of an obligation to teach children and speak of Torah when you lie down and when you get up
(Deuteronomy 6:7). Thus, the evening Shema recited before retiring precedes the morning Shema
which is read upon waking in the morning. The Talmud continues with a more general verse that
does not limit this order to Shema. At the end of each day in the biblical creation description, the
phrase "and it was evening, and it was morning" is used to signal the end of the day's work. Here
13
https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/judaism/world-of-the-sages-day-or-night-when-do-we-start

51
too evening precedes morning, and this validates the discussion first of the evening Shema and
subsequently of the morning Shema (see M. Berachot 1:2). The night-before-day rule applies in a
different context as well.

The Torah tells us that it is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day
(Leviticus 22: 28). The term yom ehad (one day) is used in this context and in the creation story.
Thus, our sages conclude that the day follows the night for calculating the 24-hour period during
which an animal and its offspring cannot be slaughtered together (M. Hullin 5:5). In Jewish
tradition, each 24-hour period begins at sunset, hence the morning is really the middle of the day.
Thus, Shabbat begins in the evening, as do all the festivals. This order curiously sets us apart from
non-Jewish dating systems and could be considered a defining feature of the Jewish calendar.
However, it may not be so clear-cut that the night precedes the day in Jewish tradition. The very
biblical verse quoted by the Talmud - "and it was evening, and it was morning" - was read very
differently by one of the medieval biblical commentators.

The Frenchman Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (c.1085-1158), known as Rashbam, followed in the
footsteps of his illustrious grandfather, Rashi, authoring biblical and talmudic commentaries. His
commentary on the Pentateuch stands out for its succinct style and its bold devotion to the literal
meaning of the text. As such, Rashbam made no attempt to align his comments with normative
law. On a few occasions, his words blatantly contradict Halacha, though he viewed Jewish law as
true and authoritative. Noticing that the biblical verse avoids using the term layla (night), Rashbam
suggests that passage should be read "and the day set, and it was dawn."

Thus, dawn concluded the day, and the new day began at sunrise. Rashbam never suggested that
this interpretation should affect Jewish law. Nevertheless, in an unrelated halachic realm - Temple
service - the day precedes the night. Sacrificial leftovers from the day's service were burned on the
altar in the evening and no new offerings were made. When sacrifices were to be eaten on the day
they were offered, they could be consumed the entire night, the deadline being the next morning
(see Leviticus 7:15).

Thus, when the sages were faced with someone who forgot the afternoon Minha prayer, they
questioned whether the supplicant could make up this lost prayer by reciting the evening prayer
twice (B. Berachot 26a-b). At the root of the question is the source of the three daily prayer
services. If the prayers replace the Temple service, then once evening has arrived and the day has
passed, the prayer can no longer be offered.

Alternatively, the afternoon prayer may be recited in the evening, just as the remainders of
offerings were burned on the altar that evening. Even if the prayers are not modeled after the
Temple rituals, the other possibility may also indicate that the day precedes the night. The Talmud
records the opinion that the three daily services date back to our forefathers: Abraham established
Shaharit, Isaac introduced Minha and Arvit was the innovation of Jacob. Indicatively, our first
forefather - Abraham - established the first prayer, that is, the morning Shaharit and not the evening
prayer. Indeed, other biblical verses indicate that the day precedes the night. When Moses sat in
judgment, he received people from the morning until the evening (Exodus 18:13-14).

52
In the curses delineated at the end of the Torah, we are told that the situation will be so dire that in
the morning you will say "when will evening come?" and in the evening you will say "when will
morning come?" (Deuteronomy 28:67). In both these passages the day precedes the night. Thus,
we see that Jewish tradition offers two paradigms for the order of the day. The accepted Jewish
view is that the night precedes the day, and this approach permeates Jewish life.

Another view, however, exists whereby each calendar day begins in the morning. This view was
reserved for the Temple. Why did our tradition not adopt the Temple model as the pervasive
practice? This system would certainly fit our lifestyle - each morning we wake up to a new day.
Why was the night-precedes-day paradigm preferred?

We can suggest that our forebears sought to establish where we begin our day. Does the day begin
gulping down a quick breakfast and racing off to earn a livelihood? When there is a holiday, do
we start the day by oversleeping? Or perhaps the day should begin by coming home to the family
and by sitting around the Shabbat table?

By adopting the night-before-day system, our sages convey a message about priorities: True we
must work to support ourselves and our families, but employment is merely a means, not the goal.
Our day really begins when we arrive home from work, when we sit and enjoy a festive atmosphere
with loved ones. Thus, the day starts in the evening, in the home, together with the family.

53
Meir Ydit writes:14

14
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/cj/classics/11-29-11-calendar/counting-day-
night.pdf

54
55
56
57
58
 The Creation, by Lawrence W. Ladd c. 1880

Does a Day Begin in the Evening?

Close reading of the relevant biblical texts uncovers friction, maybe momentous

historical reform.

Dr. Hacham Isaac S. D. Sassoon writes:15

In the Festival Calendar of Leviticus 23, the final verse of the Yom Kippur paragraph insists rather
emphatically that the fast shall be observed “from evening until evening.” The only parallel to this
verse is Exodus 12:18 which stresses that the feast of Matzot shall be observed “from the 14th in
the evening until the 21st in the evening.”

15
https://www.thetorah.com/article/does-a-day-begin-in-the-evening

59
The reason these texts strike us as anomalous, is that we take it for granted that Sabbaths and
festivals all run from evening to evening. Why then does the Torah spell it out just for Kippur and
Matzot? As it happens, this problem exercised the Rabbis more than a little; and it will be
instructive to see how they grappled with it before considering a solution proposed by
scholarship.

Yom HaKippurim – The Day of Atonement

Let us first look at Leviticus 23’s Kippur pericope closely. It consists of seven verses (26-32) in
which the word ‘day’ (yom – with and without the definite article) looms large:

The date is clear, the tenth of the seventh month, but what is the exact connotation of “day” which
appears five times in this passage?

Two Meanings of “Day”

Modern English dictionaries, under the entry Day, typically offer the following two definitions:

1. The time between sunrise and sunset.

2. A duration of 24 hours corresponding to a complete revolution of the earth on its axis.

Genesis 1:5 suggests that ancient Israelites’ yom served both senses:

60
However, the rabbis, at least overtly, betray no interest in the verse’s tantalizing paronomasia.
Moreover, they ignore one of the verse’s key words, namely, boker, a noun whose scriptural
meanings include morning, daybreak or dawn. Nowhere does biblical bokerdenote a period from
dawn to dusk; least of all in Gen 1 where v. 5 precludes it by declaring that the word for the daylight
hours is none other than yom. But it had to wait for the Middle Ages for boker to receive its due,
when R. Samuel b. Meir (Rashbam ca. 1085-1158) mooted that a straightforward construal
of vayhi erev vayhi boker [it was evening, and it was morning] describes a time-unit ending at
dawn.

In fact, so completely did the Rabbis discount boker, that they were able to elicit from the verse
an opposite meaning. Thus, Gen 1:5’s “and there was evening and there was morning day one”
described for them a timespan that commenced in the evening, continued on through morning,
ending twenty-four hours after it started with the onset of the next nightfall.[1] Needless to say, this
stereotypical phrase, which figures in the next five creation paragraphs, was understood
consistently this way by the rabbis. What is more, so firmly established was this definition, that
they axiomatically treated yom’s occurrence in other Torah texts as possessing the same
denotation.

Annulling Vows on the Yom They Are Heard

A case in point is yom in the text that grants a father authority to annul vows made by a daughter
under his guardianship on the yom he hears about them (Num 30:6), and grants the same power to
a husband to annul his wife’s vows on the yom he hears (Num 30:9,13):

61
Without producing a proof text, the Mishnah assumes the male’s one-day veto power to run from
sunset to sunset (m. Ned. 10:8).[2]

Slaughtering a Calf and Its Mother on One Yom

The same definition emerges from the Talmudic discussion of the Torah’s law against slaughtering
a calf/lamb and its mother on one day:

The Mishnah seeks a formal definition of this verse’s “one day” (m. Hul. 5:5):

Obviously, Shimon b. Zoma took for granted that yom x of the refrain of Genesis 1 that closes each
of the six days of creation denotes a time period stretching from nightfall to nightfall.[3] Thus he is
able to extrapolate from Gen 1’s “day” to Lev 23:28’s by means of a gezerah shavahanalogy. In
stark contrast, the “day” of Gen 1 itself requires no elucidation; its meaning is self-evident to Ben
Zoma.

62
Indeed, in a baraita juxtaposed to this Mishnah (Hul. 83a) Ben Zoma insinuates that a Torah “day”
should invariably be taken to denote a time period extending from nightfall to nightfall unless
indicated otherwise by Scripture. Such contrary indication appears in the Torah with respect to the
cult and sacrificial meals (see further). Because the subject matter of Lev 22:28 could be
[mis]understood as cult-related, a gezerah shavah [4] was called for in order to forestall the error of
confusing Lev 22:28’s law with cult law. Thus, it is having been demonstrated that Lev 22:28 is,
as it were, the exception that proves the rule, yom’s meaning is safe. Or is it?

The Day of Atonement: The Night of the 9th?

The rabbinic understanding of yom confronts a dilemma in the final verse of the Day of Atonement
pericope in Leviticus 23:

If yom automatically denotes a 24 hour stretch lasting from one evening until the next, this
“evening to evening” stipulation would seem to be redundant. And this apparent redundancy
appears to have riled the rabbis judging by the attempts – perhaps subconscious – to neutralize its
inconvenient implications. By zeroing in on the “ninth,” sources such as the following divert
attention from the “evening to evening” clause – which is where the menace to their definition
of yom lurks.[5]

Adding Time to Yom Kippur (‫)תוספת יום כפור‬

The rabbis ruled that observance of Yom Kippur should begin at least a few moments before
sundown. Biblical support for the ruling (referred to as “adding profane time to holy”) was
delivered by R. Ishmael (b. Rosh Hashanah 9a) as follows:

63
According to R. Ishmael, then, the verse’s strange locution is there to convey the extraneous law
that Yom Kippur should be extended in both directions.

Importance of Eating on the Ninth

As for R. Akiva, since he derives the rule about adding to the holy from an entirely different verse
(Exod 34:21), the Talmud wants to know what he does with the apparently superfluous Yom
Kippur verse. Answer: he learns from it the exhortation of R. Hiyya bar Rav of Difti (b. Rosh
Hashanah 9a-b):

License not to Fast for Two Days in the Diaspora

Centuries later, the method of isolating “on the ninth” from its context yielded a third derasha.
Among the rabbinic traditions challenged by the Jewish philosopher and skeptic, Uriel da Costa
(d. 1640) was the observance of a second day of yom tov (festival) in the Diaspora. The practice

64
began when rabbinic Jews relied on witnesses in Judea testifying about when they saw a new
moon, in order to designate the start of a new month.

The concern was that Jews in the Diaspora would not find out which day the month began and
might, consequently, observe a festival on the wrong date. Since all months in the Jewish calendar
are either 29 or 30 days, the maximal margin of error is one day, so the practice became to celebrate
each festival for two days, thereby covering all bases.

De Costa thought to poke a hole in the practice by pointing out that Yom Kippur was observed for
a single day. Shouldn’t Diaspora Jews fast for two days just as they celebrate festivals for two
days? The challenges were sent by communal leaders to the Venetian rabbi Yehudah Leon de
Modena (d. 1648) for refutation. This was his riposte to de Costa’s Kippur argument.

Here R. Modena takes a homiletic route, reading the verse as a concession to human frailty.
Recognizing the impossibility of fasting for two consecutive days, this text is saying that Yom
Kippur observance on the ninth, in cases of unavoidable calendrical error, still counts as Yom
Kippur observance. This charming derasha will have served as a polemical defense at the time,
but one may doubt whether Modena himself believed it to inhere, even latently, in the biblical text.

Inasmuch as they dwell on “the ninth” at the expense of “evening to evening” these three strategies
fail to convince. For the verse’s dynamite is precisely its evident need to fix the fast –
called yom throughout the pericope – from evening to evening. This need calls into question the

65
rabbinic premise that a yom’s parameters are cut and dried. By and by we shall present our
alternative theory, but not before reviewing a “twin” text.

Week of Matzot: Night of the 14th?

As already noted in the introduction, a comparable redundancy manifests itself in Exodus 12,
where the lemma yom – in the singular and plural, with and without suffixes – abounds. The first
occurrence of yom is at v. 6:

The demonstrative “this” refers back to the month identified at 12:2, i.e., the first month of the
year. Later in the chapter, in vv. 14-17, yom is used to specify the days when leaven must be
avoided, matzot eaten, and labor refrained from. Then we come to v. 18:

Eating matzot had been promulgated already at v. 15, but thanks to P’s penchant for reiteration
and inclusios, this instance would hardly grab our attention. Verse 18’s initial word barishon [= in
the first (month)], on the other hand, is startling, since there could be no question as to which
month was intended, the month having been identified minutely in 12:2.

But the real crux is the word “ba-erev.” Why, if days always start at sundown as a matter of course,
would the verse say that the festival starts on the fourteenth in the evening?

Removing Leaven on the Fourteenth

66
Again, the rabbis obviate the ostensible redundancy by investing it with a tangential halakha: biur
chametz, the elimination of leaven before the festival of Matzot begins (j. Pes. 1:1 [27a]):

This imaginative midrash provides scriptural authority for the rabbinic ritual of searching for
leaven on the evening of the fourteenth (‫ )בדיקת חמץ‬as a preliminary to its removal; a ritual which,
otherwise, has little biblical support. Nevertheless, it is hardly a plain reading of the verse.

Redactions Reflecting Reform?

Not a few scholars believe that P’s Day originally began at daybreak. The stubborn boker of Gen
1 constitutes pretty formidable evidence. But Gen 1 is not alone. P’s cultic legislation presupposes
that night belongs to the preceding day.

Sacrifices: Night Follows Day

Indeed, the laws of the sacrificial rites are patently clear in this regard, with the law requiring that
the shelamim offering be consumed before the morning as the parade example:

Even the Talmud makes no attempt to deconstruct this scripture, but on the contrary, recognizes
that for priests in the sanctuary the night was the sequel to the preceding daylight hours (b. Hul.
83a; b. Tem. 14a):

67
The very rhythm of sacrifices is tied to a day beginning at dawn, with the priests first duty being
to feed the fire on the altar in preparation for that day’s offerings:

Very likely the temple protocol attested all too firmly to priestly practice. No midrash could
supplant public knowledge!

Change Afoot in P

As discernibly as the bulk of P bespeaks a day-precedes-night system, Exodus 12:18 and Lev 23:32
reverse that order, making the day begin the previous night. We would venture that these two
verses represent a reform that sought to replace P’s older division of days with a night-first model.

The fact that only the Matzot festival and Yom HaKippurim were thus amended may suggest that
the reform came about at the eleventh hour just as the Torah text was being canonized. But if
circumstances were not propitious for revising all the Torah’s yoms, in the long run it didn’t matter.
One way or another, the new system seems to have prevailed, to the degree that remaining traces
of P’s former computation of days were explained away so successfully that even Gen
1’s boker was lost in the process.

68
If we are correct that Exodus 12:18 and Leviticus 23:32 are later interpolations, it might help
account for the awkwardness of these verses within their respective contexts. It would also explain
why they are positioned after ‫ ֻחַקּת עוָֹלם‬summary formulations. Thus, at Lev 23:31 we read:

Then we get v. 32 which is no ordinary inclusio. For besides duplicating the instructions of v. 27,
“you shall afflict yourselves” (‫) ְוִﬠ ִנּיֶתם ֶאת ַנְפֹשֵׁתיֶכם‬, it goes out of its way to unequivocally revise or
recast the timing of the holiday from the tenth to “the ninth at evening till the next evening”.

At Exodus 12 the pattern is the same. The new verse comes after a typical summary formula
(12:17),[9] and in the course of repeating v. 15’s law (matzot shall be eaten during the festival) it
lays down a time frame in emphatic language that jumps off the page and cannot be missed. The
intent is, no doubt, to shift the hour of the festival’s onset from where the rest of the chapter had
set it. In other words, “fourteenth at night” is polemicizing with those who think the day starts in
the daytime.

Shabbat and Genesis 1

The Sages’ close reading of texts often seems within striking distance of our contemporary critical
approach and sometimes they hit the mark. However, megalithic bulwarks held them back when
it came to Genesis 1. The mere contemplation of any alternative understanding would have been
anathema inasmuch as it could threaten shabbat which, long before the rabbinic era – indeed as far
back as Nehemiah – began with nightfall on Friday.

69
Thus, the rabbis did not probe boker in Genesis 1; it was out of bounds – long deemed a danger
zone.

Ibn Ezra’s Curse to Protect the Shabbat

This perceived danger can be highlighted by the aggressive reaction of R. Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-
1167) upon coming in contact with Rashbam’s interpretation of Genesis 1 (already mentioned in
passing). He pronounced an ominous imprecation on any who would dare promote it, fearing that
it argues for a Shabbat beginning in the morning.[11]

Ibn Ezra’s vehemence testifies not to the implausibility of Rashbam’s interpretation, but to its
perceived flouting of tradition. At the risk of their tongue and palate agglutinating and their right
eye losing its sight (Ibn Ezra’s curse), there are those, the present writer among them, who incline
to take the key word boker [=morning] at face value. Hence, the reports of how things unfolded
on each creation “day” can be read as chronologically ordered, with morning marking the end of
one unit and the start of the next.

Though we would like to sign off by identifying the catalyst that might have triggered the
reform,[12] so far, all proposals have been too speculative to share, but the quest continues…

70
Footnotes

1. According to this scenario, the act of creation will presumably have begun in the evening.

2. The Mishnah reads as follows:

‫ ָנְדָרה ִﬠם ֲחֵשָׁכה – ֵמֵפר ַﬠד‬.–‫ ֵכּיַצד? ָנְדָרה ְבֵּליֵלי ַשָׁבּת – ָיֵפר ְבֵּליֵלי ַשָׁבּת וְּביוֹם ַהַשָּׁבּת ַﬠד ֶשֶׁתְּחָשׁ‬.‫ֲהָפַרת ְנָד ִרים ָכּל ַהיּוֹם ֵישׁ ַבָּדָּבר ְלָהֵקל וְּלַהֲחִמיר‬

:‫ ֵאינוֹ ָיכוֹל ְלָהֵפר‬,‫ ֶשִׁאם ָחְשָׁכה ְול ֹא ֵהֵפר‬,–‫ֶשׁלּ ֹא ֶתְחַשׁ‬

Annulment of vows can take place the whole day. This may result in a leniency or a stringency. How so? If she vowed

on the eve of the Shabbat, he could annul on the eve of the Shabbat and on the day of Shabbat until nightfall. If she

vowed just before nightfall, he could annul only until nightfall: if night falls and he has not yet annulled it, he can no

longer annul it.

To be sure, the gemara cites tannaim who held that the father and husband have a window of 24 hours for annulling

from the moment they learn of the vow irrespective of the sun’s position at that moment. However, to arrive at their

paradigm, these tannaim invoke Num 30:15’s anomalous miyyom el yom – which for them overrides bare yom used in

the surrounding verses. In other words, even these tannaim grant that unqualified yom denotes a timespan that runs

from dusk to dusk.

3. When wearing their philosophical or aggadic hats, rabbis allow that the days of creation in Genesis 1 could not have

been 24 hours because the sun was not created until the fourth ‘day’.

4. Gezerah shavah is an analogy based on congruous words. Hence, although Gen1:5’s “one” is ordinal while “one” of

Lev 22:28 is cardinal, both use homonymous yom echad.

5. Some wonder whether the reason “from evening to evening” is ignored in this and related derashot, is because in fact

Lev 23:32 (and its congener – Exod 12:18) constituted the rabbis’ actual authority for starting days with nightfall.

However, were that the case, one would expect to hear those verses shouted from the rooftop! Yes, at b. R.H. 20b these

verses are quoted in connection with a detail in the rigmarolic process of fixing the New Month when the calendar was

empirical and dependent on moon-sightings. But, based on the Talmud’s own principles, harnessing these verses to

establish a general rule about a yom’s contours would have been controversial if not inadmissible – precisely because

they are a pair. A multiplicity of scriptures teaching the same thing cannot establish a general rule; the thing taught will

apply merely to the two or three specified cases. The logic: were the goal to establish a global rule, a single mention

would have sufficed (see b. Kid. 35a and parallels).

71
6. Cf. Sifra “Emor” 11, 14:5; b. Yoma 81b.

7. Yehudah Leon de Modena, Ma’amar Magen Ve-tsinnah (ed., Abraham Geiger; Breslau 1856) 7b.

8. Cf. Lev 22:29-30 etc.

9.

.‫ יז …וְּשַׁמ ְרֶתּם ֶאת ַהיּוֹם ַהֶזּה ְלֹדֹרֵתיֶכם ֻחַקּת עוָֹלם‬:‫שמות יב‬

Exod 12:17 …You shall observe this day throughout the ages as an institution for all time.

10. Some scholars e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, prefer to render tsalelu “became quiet, inactive” (Ezra-Nehemiah, 1988 p.

358); but the essential picture does not change. Besides, the merchants sleeping outside the walls is indisputable. From

a much later era, albeit still pre-rabbinic, comes Josephus’s report of the trumpet blasts sounded towards evening on

Fridays heralding the approach of Sabbath (Jewish Wars 4:9,12; cf. m. Suk. 5:5).

11. See discussion in Zev Farber, “Can the Torah Contradict Halacha (Jewish Law)?”TheTorah.com (2015).

12. What can be said more confidently is that the faction promoting the reform triumphed despite the odds. It is tempting to
conjecture that Nehemiah might have lent a hand since his closing of the gates on Friday appears as a novelty that the

vendors did not believe to be sustainable.

72
 Night and Day
Uriah writes:16

There are two elements to one day, what we call daytime and what we call
nighttime- daytime being when the sun is out, and things are bright and nighttime
being when the sun is set, and things are dark. Rebbe Nachman of Breslov teaches
that the darkness of night represents the difficult times in life. Just as we grope in
the dark without direction and unable to avoid stumbling blocks and obstacles, so

16
http://www.kumah.org/2008/09/night-and-day.html

73
too when we are going through difficult periods in our lives we often feel at a loss
for direction and purpose. Lacking a guiding light, we can often fall victim to
despair. The daytime, however, refers to the more enjoyable periods of life, those
times when we see the path laid out ahead of us and feel a degree of security.

There are two ways of approaching the order of day- the Jewish way and the non-Jewish way. The
non-Jews, usually using a solar calender, hold that the day begins with the morning and that the
nighttime represents the end of that particular day. Conversely the Jews, using a mainly lunar-
based calendar, view a day as beginning with the evening and the actual daytime as being the latter
part of the day. This is why Shabbat and other Jewish holidays always begin in the evening and
last until the evening of the following day. This concept doesn't just apply to the calendar, but
rather is a principle Hashem has put into the universe of which many things, one of which happens
to be time, adhere to. For it says in B'reishit (Genesis) "And there was evening and there was
morning, one day." Since the time of creation, it has been a principle of the universe that first there
is a period of darkness and afterwards it is followed by the period of light.

Rebbe Nachman teaches that therefore, when going through difficult times we can take comfort in
the fact that though things may be difficult at the moment, it is guaranteed that eventually the light
will shine forth in our lives and things will become better as it is a fundamental principle G-d has
put into the world, and all we must do is hold out long enough to see our personal redemption
come from whatever the obstacles may be. But if both the darkness and the light are part of a
system setup by G-d, this begs the question why does G-d desire us to pass through this alternating
experience of hardship and redemption in the first place? Obviously, G-d doesn't do it for His own
amusement as He is far beyond simple human thinking such as that, and because of His great love
for us He only does what's in our best interest never subjects us to needless suffering. So it must
be that He puts us through these processes in order that we should grow. People who stay in their
comfort zone tend to grow lazy and slump whereas those who are held up against the fire of
adversity are forced to grow and overcome in order to survive. This puts an interesting
responsibility into our hands... since these life situations are presented to us in order that we should
grow it seems incumbent upon us to actually see to it that when we come out of our "nights" into
our "days", we have taken something away from the experience and grow to become a better
human being. To do so is to fulfill G-d's will, to fail to do so is to essentially waste an opportunity
provided to us by Him.

Human civilization is currently in the era of the Arab. As the western world sets into decline, the
Muslim world in general, and particularly the Arab world is filling in the power vacuum and vying
for ultimate control of the direction in which to steer humanity. This is mainly through Arab oil
influence and its choke hold on international policy combined with the growing boldness of
militant Islam and the western world's lack of effort to curb either. It seems as if conflicts driven
by this change are sparking up in virtually every place across the world... the aggressive spread of
Islam, or "terrorism" as it is most often referred to affects almost every group of people in every
place to some degree or another. Often fought by underground militias which blend in with the

74
civilians in major population centers as well as in the media and across the internet, those who
oppose this movement are often at a loss for means to fight it, as its tactics are radically different
from organized state militaries of the enemies of yesteryear. As more nations and peoples succumb
to tolerance and eventual social if not military surrender of this movement, those left opposed to
it face a world of fear and darkness and seemingly greater conflict that what is already upon us
lays ahead.

In Hebrew the word for Arab (ARaVi) [ ‫ ]ערבי‬and the word for evening (EReV) [‫ ]ערב‬share the
same root, Ayin-Resh-Bet (the word for Arab only differing by having an additional letter Yud at
the end). As the age of the Arab (ARaVi) sets in the world is indeed starting to fall into a deep
darkness- a worldwide darkness of night (EReV). However, as we discussed earlier, there are two
different views to what evening means- the Jewish one of the days beginning and the non-Jewish
one of the days ending. Therefore, this era is marking an incredible transition in the history of
humanity, that from an age of a non-Jewish based experience and thinking to that of Jewish based
thinking and experience. What exactly does this mean? As already stated, Hashem desires people
to go through the nighttime-daytime experience so that they should emerge more developed. So
too perhaps humanity as a whole is currently undergoing such a process.

And just what is the development that the world as a whole must gain through all this? A new
perspective and relationship to G-d. The Ben Ish Chai, Gaon Chayim Yosef of Baghdad, comments
on how in the morning prayers we recite "Hashem melech, Hashem malach, Hashem yimloch
l'olam vaed" (Hashem reigns, Hashem has reigned, Hashem will reign forever) not in the order of
past present and future but rather out of order starting with the present. He says this is because our
faith in Hashem ruling over the past and the future is based in recognition that He currently reigns
as evident through the miracles He does for us in these times. Having described the Jewish
recognition of G-d, the morning prayers continue several paragraphs later to describe the differing
recognition of G-d that the non-Jews will eventually have in future times when it says, "V'yomru
bagoyim Hashem malach, Hashem melech, Hashem malach, Hashem yimloch l'olam vaed" (And
the nations will say Hashem has reigned, Hashem reigns, Hashem has reigned, Hashem will reign
forever). This recognition of Hashem differs from that of the Jewish nation as explained by the
Ben Ish Chai in that it seems the future non-Jewish recognition of Hashem currently reigning and
reigning for all future times are both first preceded by the statement that Hashem has reigned in
the past.

Thus, we can see the future nature of the non-Jews' relationship to Hashem and infer about their
current relationship. The Jews currently recognize Hashem and His mandate over the universe
entire, and all past or future aspects of His rule correspond to the same G-d who we currently
recognize rules right now. Yet the G-d of Israel is also the G-d of the rest of the world and the
father of all of humanity. It is His desire that all people in His world should come to know Him
and forge a relationship with Him. Unfortunately, the non-Jewish nations of the world have not

75
been able to achieve the perception of G-d that the nation of Israel has via the Torah that G-d gave
to it as well as the revelations to the patriarchs Abraham, Issac, Jacob and to the entire nation at
Mount Sinai. Yet once the world emerges from the current "dark of night" that it is currently in, it
will have gained a new development from the night-day cycle. With the coming "light of day" and
the arrival of Moshiach (the Jewish Messiah) the world will come to see the truth of Torah and
finally recognize Hashem, the G-d of Israel, as the one true sovereign of the world. Once this
occurs, unlike the Jews who currently proclaim Hashem as king, the non-Jewish nations will
realize that it was Hashem who ruled all along and therefore because of that realization of the past
they will also realize that it is Hashem who reigns currently; so too they will see that just as it was
Hashem who reigned before it is Hashem that will reign in the future of all time. Thus, the morning
prayers say that they will proclaim "Hashem has reigned" each time before declaring that He
currently reigns and will in the future.

May G-d grant us the patience and strength to endure the current and coming dark times so that
we may survive to see the coming times of light that will follow, in our own lives as well as the
world over.

76
 Day & Night in A Midsummer Night's Dream
Arielle Windham writes:17

Through the magic of modern movies, the audience is made keenly aware of the impact day and
night have on certain scenes in Shakespeare's 'A Midsummer Night's Dream.' But even before
theatrics advanced enough to bring sun and moon to the stage, these opposing times were more
than just a play of light. This lesson will explore how day and night help us understand the deeper
meaning of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream.'

Time of Day in A Midsummer Night's Dream

When you're reading a play, it's easy to overlook how important setting can be. Plays are meant to
be watched, right? When you're watching, things like the time of day are easy to recognize and
blend seamlessly into your understanding of the play's themes. It's when we read a play that we
need to think harder about setting, time of day in this case. We must ask ourselves, ''how does it
help me understand the deeper meaning?''
If you want the simple answer, here it is. Day represents the human world and night the fairy realm.
Puck even says in Act 3, Scene 2, that fairies, ghosts, and ''damned spirits all. . . willfully exile
themselves from light.''
There's nothing tricky about that. But is Shakespeare ever that simple?
So, what's the complex answer?
At its core, A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play about how perception relates to truth. Did you
catch all the references to eyes and seeing? Shakespeare wants us to question whether our eyes tell
the truth, or if truth is only revealed when we're blind? Well, you have to have light to see, don't
you? The opposition between night and day is another device to explore this theme.
Go back to our simple answer, and let's take things a step further. By comparing day and night
scenes, can we figure out Shakespeare's thoughts on truth and perception?

Daytime Scenes
Two of the play's acts take place during the day, Act 1 and Act 4. We have established that day
represents the human realm, but if we look closely at these scenes, we find they represent a more
philosophical realm as well - the realm of law and order.
In Act 1, this is pretty straight forward. The major conflict revolves around the Athenian law that
says a girl must obey her father or die. This makes a clear connection between daytime, man, and
law. Even the actors in Scene 2, all tradesmen, help align daytime with law and order. They have
day jobs, vital to Athenian society, and acting is just a hobby, something to be done at night after
work.

17
https://study.com/academy/lesson/day-night-in-a-midsummer-nights-dream.html

77
Tradesmen playing Actors

The only true loves of the play are also revealed in this act. Theseus and Hippolyta and Hermia
and Lysander have fallen in love without out any enchantment.
Act 4 takes place the morning after a chaotic night in the woods. Titania and Lysander's true sight
returns when the enchantment is removed. Also, Theseus, the embodiment of law, returns to the
stage. The human hunting party comes across the sleeping young lovers, and the fantastic 'dreams'
of the night before are swept away by the daylight.

78
 Discovery of the Lovers

In a way, these scenes end in a tie. In Act 1, the law is unfair to true love, but we see true love does
exist in the light. In Act 4, the law and love are reconciled, and everyone is happy. However, this
was only possible because of the strange events of the night before.

Nighttime Scenes
So, if daytime is the realm of law, then nighttime must be the realm not just of fairies, but also of
chaos. It's a fun, harmless sort of chaos, but Oberon and Puck's mischief in Acts 2 and 3 definitely
contrasts with Theseus's law and order.

79
 Harmless Chaos

“There are as many nights as days, and the one is just as long as the other in the
year's course. Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the
word 'happy' would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness.”

Carl Gustav Jung

In general, the people asseverated the Creator had made everything good and beautiful. He was
beyond good and evil. He was m’zuri, that is, beautiful, and everything he did was m’zuri.

When I asked: “But what about the wicked animals who kill your cattle?” they said, “The lion is
good and beautiful.” “And your horrible diseases?” They said, “You lie in the sun, and it is good.”

I was impressed by this optimism. But at six o’clock in the evening this optimism was suddenly
over, as I soon discovered. From sunset on, it was a different world – the dark world of ayik, of
evil, danger, fear. The optimistic philosophy gave way to fear of ghosts and magical practices
intended to secure protection from evil. Without any inner contradiction the optimism returned at
dawn.

It was a profoundly stirring experience for me to find at the sources of the Nile, this remainder of
the ancient Egyptian conception of the two acolytes of Osiris, Horus and Set. Here, evidently, was

80
a primordial African experience that had flowed down to the coasts of the Nile: adhista, the rising
sun, the principle of light like Horus; ayik, the principle of darkness, the breeder of fear. In the
simple rites performed for the dead, laibon’s words and his sprinkling of milk unite the opposites;
he simultaneously sacrifices to these two principles, which are of equal power and significance
since the time of their dominance, the rule of day and of night, each visibly lasts for twelve hours.
The important thing, however, is the moment when, with the typical sudden-ness of the tropics,
the first ray of light shoots forth like an arrow and night passes into life-filled light.

The sunrise in these latitudes was a phenomenon that overwhelmed me anew every day. The drama
of it lay less in the splendor of the sun’s shooting up over the horizon than in what happened
afterward. I formed the habit of taking my camp stool and sitting under an umbrella acacia just
before dawn. Before me, at the bottom of the little valley, lay a dark, almost back-green strip of
jungle, with the rim of the plateau on the opposite side of the valley towering above it. At first, the
contrasts between light and darkness would be extremely sharp. Then objects would assume
contour and emerge into the light which seemed to fill the valley with a compact brightness. The
horizon above became radiantly white. Gradually the swelling light seemed to penetrate into the
very structure of objects, which became illuminated from within until at least they shone
translucently, like bits of colored glass. Everything turned to flaming crystal. The cry of the bell
bird rang around the horizon. At such moments I felt as if I were inside a temple. It was the most
sacred hour of the day, I drank in this glory with insatiable delight, or rather, in a timeless ecstasy.

Near my observation point was a high cliff inhabited by big baboons. Every morning they sat
quietly, almost motionless, on the ridge of the cliff facing the sun, whereas throughout the rest of
the day they ranged noisily through the forest, screeching and chattering. Like me, the seemed to
be waiting for the sunrise. They reminded me of the great baboons of the temple of Abu Simbel in
Egypt, which perform the gesture of adoration. They tell the same story: for untold ages men have
worshipped the great god who redeems the world by rising out of the darkness as a radiant light in
the heavens.

At that time, I understood that within the soul from its primordial beginnings there has been a
desire for light and an irrepressible urge to rise out of the primordial darkness. When the great
night comes, everything takes on a note of deep dejection, and every soul is seized by an
inexpressible longing for light. That is the pent-up feeling that can be detected in the eyes of
primitives and also in the eyes of animals. There is a sadness in animals’ eyes, and we never know
whether that sadness is bound up with the soul of the animal or is a poignant message which speaks
to us out of that still unconscious existence. That sadness also reflects the mood of Africa, the
experience of its solitudes. It is a maternal mystery, this primordial darkness. That is why the sun’s
birth in the morning strikes the natives as so overwhelmingly meaningful. The moment in which
light comes is God. That moment brings redemption, release. To say that sun is God is to blur and
forget the archetypal experience of that moment. “We are glad that the night when the spirits are
abroad is over now,” the natives will say – but that is already a rationalization. In reality a darkness
altogether different from natural light broods over the land. It is the psychic primal night which is
the same today as it has been for countless millions of years. The longing for light is the longing
for consciousness.

– Memories, Dreams, and Reflections by C.G. Jung

81
82