Q Is there a minimum time that Shabbat
and Yom Tov candles must remain lit? We have not found an absolute minimum amount of time for the candles to be lit and assume that your question is what is the minimum appropriate time. Let's start with what is best and work our way down. It is appropriate to have candles lit for as long as they serve a purpose. However, that has changed dramatically with the advent of electric lights. (We will not have the opportunity to get into the pertinent question of the extent to which electric lights can themselves be considered "Shabbat lights.") The main element of having as much light as we need is usually accomplished by means of electricity. For that reason, we no longer have the practice to light candles in all the rooms and hallways of the house where light improves the "quality of life" (see Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 43:15). The location and setting where the second element, of adding a positive, additional light to honor Shabbat, is most important is the place where one eats the Shabbat meal (Mishna Berura 263:45). It, therefore, stands to reason that the more the meal is accompanied by the special Shabbat lights, the better, and preferably it should last for the whole meal (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 75:2; Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 43:17). The most critical part of the meal is in the beginning, when one makes kiddush. There is even an opinion in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 273:7) that one cannot make kiddush without the lights being present, although it is sufficient that those lights be electric ones (see Perisha, Orach Chayim 273:6). It is rare for one to use candles that do not last at least until kiddush. The main question arises when one is eating away from home but lights candles in her own home before leaving. (Regarding the different factors that determine when to light at home and when it is better to light in the home of the hosts, see Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 45). In such a case, the opti- mal suggestion is to use candles that are long enough that one can expect them to be lit when the family returns and to put them in a place where they will be of value when they return. It is best that, when putting on electric lights (especially incandescent ones) around the house, to do so right before lighting the candles with the intention that they are part of the mitzva to light (see Riv'vot Ephrayim I, 83). That way, even if one doesn't benefit from the candles upon returning home, she can rely partially on the benefit from the electric lights. If this is not possible, then it would be required that someone wait in the house until it begins to get dark and benefit from the light of the candles. If one needs to leave before that and certainly if one leaves the house more than an hour and a quarter before sunset, then one should light at the home of the host. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat
Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read
this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at
www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email
weekly, by sending an email to
eretzhem@netvision.net.il with the message: Join Hemdatya –Please
leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the
Jewish Agency for Israel Reason: This symbolizes the matza that was eaten when the Beit HaMikdash stood, by those who offered the Pesach sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar, as stated in the Torah (Bamidbar 9:10). [Whoever was unable to come to Jerusalem on Erev Pesach to eat the Pesach sacrifice had to offer it on Pesach Sheni]. Reason: When the Children of Israel
departed from Egypt, they ate their matzot until the 14th of Iyar. The
Torah (Sh’mot 16:1) says: “And the whole congregation of the Children of
Israel came to the Wilderness of Sin...on the 15th day of the second
month.” rashi notes that this encampment is mentioned explicitly because
that day they finished the remnants of the matza they baked in Egypt and
then they became dependent on the manna. Note that the first reason above explains the matza connection to Pesach Sheni, whenever it would have been. The second reason explains why Pesach Sheni is specifically on the 14th of Iyar. So the two reasons are for different things. Apropos the choice of the date for Pesach Sheni - there is an additional suggestion that the 14th of Iyar of a regular 12-month year and the 14th of Nissan of a 13-month Shana M’uberet are the same day. So the 14th of Iyar has a “connection” to Korban Pesach. One way or the other, may we merit the
building of the Beit HaMikdash speedily in our time, BIMHEIRA B'YAMEINU,
AMEN. dodo n., extinct flightless bird, once a native of the island of Mauritius (an island country in the southwest Indian Ocean). In 1598, Portuguese sailors landing on
the island discovered a previously unknown species of bird, the Dodo.
Having been isolated by its island location from contact with humanity,
the dodo greeted the new visitors with a child-like innocence. The sailors
mistook the gentle spirit of the dodo, and its lack of fear of the new
predators, as stupidity. They dubbed the bird "dodo" (meaning something
similar to a simpleton in Portuguese). Many dodo were killed by the human
visitors, and those that survived man had to face the animals that the
humans had brought with them. Dogs and pigs soon became feral when
introduced to the Mauritian eco-system. By the year 1681 — in less than
100 years — the last dodo had died, and the world was left worse with its
passing. The dodo, historically, has been viewed as a rather plump bird,
weighing 20-23 kilograms. Grey in color, the dodo had a large, hooked
beak, and a plume of white feathers adorning its rear. The dodo was
flightless. It had small, weak wings which could not lift it into the air.
Thus it was easy prey to the Portuguese invaders who would club the bird
to death as it approached them seeking friendship. There is now a theory
that the dodo was not at all plump and weighed 13-17 kilo. As one of the earliest examples of
modern ecovandalism... the impact of the Portuguese sailors... further
disrupted nature in unexpected ways. But why was sh’mita singled out for this purpose? Granted that the Torah wanted to make a point, we are still concerned with the particular selection, the specific mitzva chosen to serve as the archetype. In the spirit of the Maharal's dictum: "Devarim gedolim einam bemikreh", "great things do not happen by accident", we may reformulate Rashi's famous question as simply "ma inyan sh’mita," "what is special about sh’mita?" The experience of Sinai was first and foremost one of the commitment of na'aseh venishma, predicated on the people's willingness to accept the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom. According to Ramban, this is the very meaning of the first of the Ten Commandments - kablu malchuti, "accept My kingship." In other words, the level of Torah commitment is measured not merely in its observance, as meticulous as that may be, but also in the motivation behind that observance. One may choose to observe for many reasons which satisfy one's own needs, desires, and comforts in life. But this is not kabalat ol malchut shamayim, accepting the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom. Though it may be glatt kosher, it may also be nothing more than Reconstructionist Orthodoxy. In an agricultural society subsisting from year to year on its annual produce, the laws of sh’mita are certainly problematic. Far from a vacation from work, they are a test of allegiance to royal decree, to an imperial order of the greatest difficulty. It is this characteristic of sh’mita that makes it the paradigmatic representation of all the manifold commandments promulgated at Sinai. It is the question of what the mitzvot really mean to a person. In this spirit, one might formulate a question: Immigrants to Western countries often saw the abandonment of Shabbat as a condition for basic survival. Yet, there were those who stood firm and fully observed the Shabbat. It is to those few that we owe the renaissance of Orthodoxy in the Diaspora. Is not the mitzva of living in Israel and all its concomitant mitzvot, the contemporary equivalent of our forebears' Shabbat? Is it perhaps our modern inyan sh’mita as we stand before the eternity of Sinai? - Rabbi David Ebner, Jerusalem TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh
Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a
weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah Within the space of four verses (Vayikra 18:14-17), the Torah relates to two types of people whom you might find yourself aggravating during a commercial transaction. The first is "Achiv" referring to your 'brother'; the second is "Amitecha" - your 'fellow'. The distinction lies, perhaps, in the degree of familiarity with the individual or whether the other party is Jewish or non-Jewish. Alternatively, the extent to which you
believe the "other side" is attempting to deceive you may proportionately
arouse in you justification to give back in kind. Rashi (Bava Mezia 58b)
suggests that the repetitive usage in the verses of the term "Lo Tonu" -
'Do not aggrieve [or cheat]' - indicates that, under any circumstances,
one should not hurt the partner to the deal even with words, whether with
bad advice, insults or embarrassing innuendoes. [The Parshat B'har Homepage]
|
