Shulchan Arukh · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
The sugya of בין השמשות — Shabbat 34b–35b,
the חקירה into the nature of תוספת שבת,
the machloket of the Geonim and Rabbenu Tam,
פלג המנחה and Berakhot 26a–26b.
Subject: שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן רס״א · 4 seifim
Talmudic basis: שבת ל״ד:–ל״ה: · יומא פ״א: · ברכות כ״ו.–כ״ו:
Editing: Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
- Opening the sugya — Shabbat 34b–35b and בין השמשות
- The machloket of the Geonim and Rabbenu Tam — two placements for בין השמשות
- חקירה into תוספת שבת — a mitzva of the Torah or of the Sages?
- The measure of the tosefet — from פלג המנחה, and until when?
- The Torah source of the tosefet — יומא פ״א:
- עניית ברכו and accepting Shabbat by speech
- Women and מזמור שיר ליום השבת
- Telling a non-Jew during בין השמשות
- Practical נפקא מינות — what the machloket changes today
The text of the Shulchan Arukh — the four seifim, in excerpts
The siman holds four seifim, and the pilpul that follows only unfolds what they lay down: what בין השמשות is and what may or may not be done in it (seif א); the duty to add from the profane to the holy, and the window within which that addition is taken (seif ב); the conduct of one who cannot measure (seif ג); and the moment at which the congregation, by speech, has already brought Shabbat in (seif ד).
« ספק חשיכה והיא בין השמשות… אין מדליקין את הנרות » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:א)
« יש אומרי׳ שצריך להוסיף מחול על הקודש » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ב)
« ומי שאינו בקי בשיעור זה ידליק בעוד שהשמש בראש האילנות » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ג)
One note on method, because it governs the reading of the whole siman: the text reproduced above is that of the edition Sefaria follows, with its abbreviations — יש אומרי׳ and not יש אומרים, ומות׳ and not ומותר. We copy them as they stand rather than expanding them: to expand an abbreviation is already to interpret.
1. Opening the sugya — Shabbat 34b–35b and בין השמשות
The whole siman rests on an interval of which the Gemara says that we do not know whether it belongs to the day or to the night. The baraita opens it by giving not one definition but three, and it is from the gap between them that all of today’s measurements come.
« רַבִּי יוֹסִי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת כְּהֶרֶף עַיִן, זֶה נִכְנָס וְזֶה יוֹצֵא, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו » (שבת ל״ד:)
Three ways of stating the same interval. They differ not only in the duration they assign, but in the nature of what they measure.
- Rabbi Yehuda describes an observable phenomenon: the colour of the sky in the east, then the state of the lower and upper "layers". Nothing is counted; everything is looked at.
- Rabbi Nechemia gives a duration: the time a man takes to walk half a mil from sunset. One no longer watches the sky, one counts.
- Rabbi Yose reduces the interval to an ungraspable instant — כְּהֶרֶף עַיִן — of which he says expressly that one cannot fix upon it.
The difference is not rhetorical. An optical definition is ascertained on the spot; a definition in duration is computed in advance and printed into a calendar; an instantaneous definition cannot be measured at all and exists only to tighten the doubt. The three timekeeping systems that still divide communities today descend from that gap.
The Amoraim then take the measure of Rabbi Yehuda, and they too do not agree:
« שִׁיעוּר בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשָׁה חֶלְקֵי מִיל » (שבת ל״ד:)
The Gemara rejects the first two readings of "three parts of a mil" and settles on the third:
« אֶלָּא: תְּלָתָא רִיבְעֵי מִילָא » (שבת ל״ד:)
Rav Yosef transmits the same chain otherwise:
« וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁנֵי חֶלְקֵי מִיל » (שבת ל״ד:)
The Gemara resolves this as תְּרֵי תִילְתֵי מִיל (שבת ל״ה.). Three quarters of a mil against two thirds: the gap between them is tiny, and it is enough to recall that none of these figures is an observation, but a reconstruction.
What the Gemara decides, and on what plane. The final ruling is not a ruling about truth but about stringency: Rabbi Yehuda is followed for Shabbat, and the Gemara itself says why — because it leads to the stringent side.
« הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְעִנְיַן תְּרוּמָה » (שבת ל״ה.)
« בִּשְׁלָמָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת — לְחוּמְרָא » (שבת ל״ה.)
The Shulchan Arukh takes up the figure of three quarters of a mil, and a gloss printed within seif א states it plainly: היינו כדי שיעור הלוך ג׳ רבעי מיל אחר שקיעת החמה (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:א).
Seif ב restates it as a distance: ושיעור זמן בין השמשות הוא ג׳ רבעי מיל שהם מהלך אלף ות״ק אמות קודם הלילה (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ב).
The question that opens the next section. The two formulations of the Shulchan Arukh do not count from the same point. The gloss of seif א counts after sunset; seif ב counts before night. Three quarters of a mil, yes — but three quarters of a mil from what? The entire machloket of the Geonim and Rabbenu Tam lies in that question.
2. The machloket of the Geonim and Rabbenu Tam — two placements for בין השמשות
The difficulty Rabbenu Tam faces is not that of a commentator looking for a meaning: it is a contradiction internal to the Talmud. Here, between sunset and night, there are only three quarters of a mil; elsewhere, the same school counts four mil from sunset to the emergence of the stars. Tosafot state it in so many words:
« דמשקיעת החמה עד צאת הכוכבים ארבע מילין » (תוספות שבת ל״ה. ד״ה תרי תילתי מיל)
Rabbenu Tam’s answer consists in splitting the word "setting" in two: there is a beginning of setting and an end of setting, and the two sources are not speaking of the same one.
« ואומר ר״ת דהתם מיירי בתחילת שקיעה והכא משתשקע מסוף שקיעה אחר שנכנסה חמה בעובי הרקיע » (תוספות שבת ל״ה. ד״ה תרי תילתי מיל)
Two placements, not two durations. Both schools give בין השמשות the same length — three quarters of a mil. What they move is its place on the timeline.
- The school called that of the Geonim places בין השמשות immediately after the sun disappears below the horizon. Once the three quarters of a mil have passed, it is night. This reading, classically associated with the Rif, the Rambam and — among the Acharonim — the Vilna Gaon, makes the emergence of the stars fall shortly after sunset.
- Rabbenu Tam places בין השמשות at the very end of an interval of four mil: the sun disappears (beginning of setting), then comes a long stretch of full day, and only then, at the "end of setting", do the three quarters of a mil of doubt open. Night is pushed back accordingly.
The consequence is symmetrical, and it explains why each school is by turns stringent and lenient: for the Geonim, Shabbat enters earlier and leaves earlier; for Rabbenu Tam, it enters later and leaves later.
What the Mechaber does. Seif ב does not arbitrate the question in those terms: it fixes the window of the tosefet, running it from the beginning of the setting until בין השמשות — that is, three and a quarter mil.
« וזמן תוספת זה הוא מתחלת השקיע׳ שאין השמש נראת על הארץ עד זמן בין השמשות » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ב)
What the Admur HaZaken does — and it must be read in his own text rather than in a summary. In seif ה he spells out the framework of the four mil, and he holds that the main ruling follows this first view. He then reports a second view, according to which full night would begin already at the start of the setting, and advises being stringent for it lechatchila, noting that some אנשי מעשה do in fact conduct themselves by it. But as regards lighting and praying he refuses to anticipate, and he gives as his reason the primacy of the first view.
« שֶׁמִּתְּחִלַּת הַשְּׁקִיעָה עַד צֵאת ג׳ כּוֹכָבִים הוּא מַהֲלַךְ ד׳ מִילִין » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
« שֶׁמִּתְּחִלַּת הַשְּׁקִיעָה וְאֵילַךְ הוּא לַיְלָה גָמוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
« וְיֵשׁ אַנְשֵׁי מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לְכַתְּחִלָּה כִּסְבָרָא זוֹ, שֶׁפּוֹרְשִׁים מִמְּלָאכָה שָׁעָה וּרְבִיעַ זְמַנִּיּוֹת קֹדֶם תְּחִלַּת הַשְּׁקִיעָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
« אֲבָל אֵין לְמַהֵר לְהַדְלִיק הַנֵּר וּלְהִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית שֶׁל שַׁבָּת עַד שָׁעָה וּרְבִיעַ זְמַנִּיּוֹת שֶׁקֹּדֶם צֵאת הַכּוֹכָבִים, וְלֹא שֶׁקֹּדֶם תְּחִלַּת הַשְּׁקִיעָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
« לְפִי שֶׁהָעִקָּר כִּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
What the gap changes.
- The hour of lighting. It does not follow directly from the machloket: the Shulchan Arukh settles it in seif ג by the conduct of one who cannot measure, and the Admur HaZaken by the requirement to move away from doubt. Communal calendars translate this differently — eighteen minutes before sunset in many places, more elsewhere. Those figures are local usages, not the text of the siman.
- The end of Shabbat. This is where the gap weighs heaviest, since following Rabbenu Tam pushes night back. Siman רס״א does not deal with the end of Shabbat; it only lays down its measure.
- An early arvit. If one prays before night, where exactly does the limit of "day" fall? The question joins that of section 4, and the Admur HaZaken answers it, as we have just read, by refusing to anticipate.
3. חקירה into תוספת שבת — a mitzva of the Torah or of the Sages?
Seif ב does not state the duty of adding from the profane to the holy as something obvious: it introduces it with "there are those who say". That phrase is the starting point of the pilpul, because it is itself a textual fact: the Mechaber would not have expressed himself so had he held the matter beyond dispute.
« יש אומרי׳ שצריך להוסיף מחול על הקודש » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ב)
Of what order is this duty? Three positions can be distinguished, and they do not overlap.
- First way — מן התורה. A positive commandment of the Torah, drawn from the דרשה of יומא פ״א: which section 5 will read word for word: the fast of the tenth begins "on the ninth", hence one adds from the profane to the holy, and the extension to Shabbatot is made through שַׁבַּתְּכֶם.
- Second way — מדרבנן. The verse speaks only of יום הכיפורים; the extension to the other sacred times is the work of the Sages, the דרשה serving as support rather than as source.
- Third way — a firmly established usage. Neither a Torah mitzva nor a rabbinic decree, but a received practice which one does not dispense with and which nonetheless does not carry the status of a formal obligation.
Where the decisors stand. The "of the Torah" position is classically associated with the Ramban and the Ran, and it is argued on the other side that the Rambam does not count the tosefet among the mitzvot of the ספר המצוות. The Acharonim debate both readings, and this page does not decide between them; what it can establish are the formulations of the two Shulchan Arukhs themselves — and both say "there are those who say".
« יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְהוֹסִיף מֵחֹל עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּאִסּוּר עֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה בִּכְנִיסַת שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים וּבִיצִיאָתָם » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ד)
What the phrase says and what it does not. A יש אומרים reports a view; it does not by itself measure the assent of the one reporting it. One will note only this, which is verifiable: the Admur HaZaken, having presented the duty by that phrase in seif ד, draws strict practical consequences from it in seif ה — the window of the tosefet, the nullity of an acceptance made before פלג המנחה, the obligation to repeat a prayer said too early. Conduct as firm as that is not well explained by a mere usage.
What the status changes.
- If the duty is from the Torah: a doubt as to its fulfilment is resolved stringently, and one who added nothing has not done what was incumbent upon him.
- If it is rabbinic: the duty remains entire lechatchila, but a doubt is treated more leniently.
- If it is only a usage: it remains binding as a usage, without the omission taking the name of an unfulfilled mitzva.
What the question becomes concretely — how to conduct oneself when the tosefet has been omitted — is not decided here: it is a שאלת רב.
4. The measure of the tosefet — from פלג המנחה, and until when?
Seif ב fixes the window from above: from the beginning of the setting until בין השמשות, and one takes of it what one wishes, provided one takes something of certain daytime.
« רצה לעשותו כולו תוספת עושה רצה לעשות ממנו מקצת עושה ובלבד שיוסיף איזה זמן שיהיה ודאי יום מחול על הקודש » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ב)
The Rama’s gloss opens the window from below, and it names its own source — which here is decisive:
« ואם רוצה להקדים ולקבל עליו השבת מפלג המנחה ואילך הרשות בידו » (טור ואגור בשם תוס׳ פ׳ תפלת השחר) (רמ״א או״ח רס״א:ב)
What is פלג המנחה, and why that threshold precisely? The Rama’s gloss itself refers to the chapter תפלת השחר — that is, to the fourth chapter of Berakhot, and not to another tractate. That is therefore where the definition must be sought.
The mishna there sets out the divergence over the end of the mincha prayer: the Sages, until evening; Rabbi Yehuda, until פלג המנחה.
« תְּפִלַּת הַמִּנְחָה עַד הָעֶרֶב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד פְּלַג הַמִּנְחָה » (ברכות כ״ו.)
And the Gemara, a little further on, gives the figure — half of the last mincha, that is, one and a quarter hours before the end of the day:
« רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פְּלַג הַמִּנְחָה אַחֲרוֹנָה אָמְרוּ, וְהִיא אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁעוֹת חָסֵר רְבִיעַ » (ברכות כ״ו:)
Why that threshold and no other. The reasoning is a קל וחומר from prayer to acceptance. For Rabbi Yehuda, mincha ends at פלג המנחה, and it is therefore from there that arvit may begin: from that point onward the time already belongs, as far as prayer goes, to the evening side. If one may pray the evening prayer there, all the more may one receive Shabbat there. Before that point there is nothing to which an acceptance could attach — and that is exactly what the Admur HaZaken says.
« וְאִם רוֹצֶה לְהַקְדִּים וּלְקַבֵּל עָלָיו תּוֹסֶפֶת שַׁבָּת מִפְּלַג הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה, דְּהַיְנוּ שָׁעָה וּרְבִיעַ זְמַנִּיּוֹת קֹדֶם הַלַּיְלָה — הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
« אֲבָל אִם קִבֵּל קֹדֶם פְּלַג הַמִּנְחָה — אֵין קַבָּלָתוֹ כְּלוּם, וּמֻתָּר בַּעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
Siman רס״ג states the same measure in the same words: ובלבד שיהא מפלג המנחה ולמעלה שהיא שעה ורביע קודם הלילה (שו״ע או״ח רס״ג:ד).
One and a quarter hours before what? The question is not idle, and it is the same as that of section 2 in another dress. The Admur HaZaken writes in seif ה "one and a quarter hours before night"; then, setting out the second view, he reports that for that view פלג המנחה is counted one and a quarter hours before the beginning of the setting. Depending on which view is followed, the threshold therefore does not fall at the same instant.
A tosefet has two boundaries, and they do not come from the same place. The lower boundary — פלג המנחה — comes from the regime of the prayers, in Berakhot. The upper boundary — entry into בין השמשות — comes from the regime of doubt, in Shabbat. Between the two the Shulchan Arukh leaves the choice of quantity, but not the choice of taking none at all: ובלבד שיוסיף איזה זמן שיהיה ודאי יום מחול על הקודש (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ב).
5. The Torah source of the tosefet — יומא פ״א:
The baraita at first speaks only of the fast of the tenth of Tishrei. It proceeds by elimination: the verse says "on the ninth", so one would begin on the ninth — no, for it says "in the evening"; then at nightfall — no, for it repeats "on the ninth". Only one possibility remains, and it is that possibility which grounds everything.
The structure of the דרשה. The verse is taken as a double constraint and not as an indication of date: "on the ninth" forbids waiting for night, "in the evening" forbids beginning at the morning of the ninth. Two prohibitions that cross leave a single slot — the end of the day of the ninth. The conclusion is therefore not read in the verse: it is what remains once the other readings have been ruled out.
The baraita then extends what it has just established in two directions: first from the entry to the exit, then from יום הכיפורים to the festivals, then to the Shabbatot.
« וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, בִּיצִיאָתוֹ מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד עֶרֶב״ » (יומא פ״א:)
The word by which it reaches Shabbat is the very one the Gemara had noted above: תִּשְׁבְּתוּ שַׁבַּתְּכֶם (יומא פ״א:).
The Admur HaZaken reproduces this whole דרשה in seif ד, from the verse to its generalisation, and it is from there that he draws the formulation read in section 3 on the status of the tosefet: he closes the baraita by extending the rule to every place where שבות is said, and in both directions.
« כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "שְׁבוֹת" — מוֹסִיפִים מֵחֹל עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ד)
What the דרשה does not give. It establishes that one adds; it does not say how much. The measure comes not from יומא but from שבת — that is section 1 — and the lower boundary comes from neither, but from ברכות — that is section 4. One and the same duty, three sugyot to define it: this is what makes the siman difficult.
6. עניית ברכו and accepting Shabbat by speech
Seif ד changes register. Until now the siman spoke of an interval and of a measure; here it speaks of an act that brings Shabbat in ahead of time, and it draws consequences for melakha at once.
« אחר עניית ברכו אע״פ שעדיין יום הוא אין מערבין ואין טומנין משום דהא קבלו לשבת עליהן » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ד)
What is the standing of עניית ברכו in this entry? Two readings offer themselves, and they do not have the same consequences for one who has not answered.
- First way — a public fact. ברכו is the sign by which the congregation marks its entry into Shabbat. What binds is the entry of the congregation; the individual is caught up in it whether he answered or not.
- Second way — a personal act. What brings Shabbat in is the acceptance of the one who answers. So long as a man has not answered on his own account, nothing has happened to him.
The reasoning is not settled by intuition: siman רס״ג sets out both faces one after the other. For one who prayed alone and in advance, the acceptance holds even if he says he does not wish to accept it — the act counts for more than the declared intention:
« אע״פ שלא התפללו הקהל עדיין אם קדם היחיד והתפלל של שבת מבע״י חל עליו קבלת שבת ואסור בעשיית מלאכה ואפילו אם אומר שאינו רוצה לקבל שבת » (שו״ע או״ח רס״ג:יא)
And for the congregation, the next seif is plainer still: the minority is drawn along against its will.
« אם רוב הקהל קבלו עליהם שבת המיעוט נמשכים אחריהם בעל כרחם » (שו״ע או״ח רס״ג:יב)
The Admur HaZaken gathers both cases into a single sentence in seif ג, and adds to them the third — the man present who did not answer. His formulation leaves no room for doubt on this precise point: when the majority of the congregation has answered ברכו, Shabbat falls upon him against his will, even though he would not wish to accept it.
« אוֹ שֶׁרֹב הַצִּבּוּר עָנוּ "בָּרְכוּ" אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא לֹא עָנָה עִמָּהֶם, שֶׁחָל עָלָיו הַשַּׁבָּת בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְקַבְּלוֹ » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ג)
What these seifim establish together. On the case of a majority of the congregation, the texts cited point toward the first way: acceptance is not merely a movement of the heart, it is a fact that imposes itself. Whether a condition laid down in advance could block it is not treated in those lines; it is treated, for a different act, in siman רס״ג — that is the next section.
What follows immediately from the acceptance. In that same seif ג the Admur HaZaken draws a rule whose severity is striking: one who has accepted performs no שבות himself, even before בין השמשות and even for a mitzva. But he may tell a non-Jew to act — and his reason does not concern the individual, it concerns the map of the Jewish world at that hour.
« לְפִי שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלוּ עֲדַיִן אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְעוֹשִׂים מְלָאכוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בְּעַצְמָן, וְהֵיאַךְ נֶאֱסוֹר לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשׂוּ אֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי נָכְרִי » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ג)
7. Women and מזמור שיר ליום השבת
Seif ד closes with a sentence that has occupied the Acharonim: what for the people of the Gemara was done by ברכו is done among us by the מזמור.
« ולדידן הוי אמירת מזמור שיר ליום השבת כעניית ברכו לדידהו » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ד)
The question. Seif ד speaks neither of women nor of lighting: it speaks of the congregation and of what it says. If the entry of Shabbat passes through words said in the synagogue, what of one who is not there? And if another entry exists elsewhere — the lighting — how do two entries coexist for one and the same household?
Two distinct acts, and the Shulchan Arukh treats them in two places. One is a word — ברכו, or the מזמור that stands in its place — and it is treated here, in siman רס״א. The other is an act — the lighting — and it is treated in siman רס״ג. It is this division, and not a hierarchy between the two, that explains how a household can already have entered Shabbat for the woman who lit and not yet for the others.
Siman רס״ג first raises the question of a prior condition, and leaves it open between two views:
« ויש אומרים שאם מתנה קודם שתדליק שאינה מקבלת שבת עד שיאמר החזן ברכו מועיל ויש אומרים שאינו מועיל לה » (שו״ע או״ח רס״ג:י)
Then the Rama gives the usage there, and states how far the lighting reaches:
« והמנהג שאותה אשה המדלקת מקבלת שבת בהדלקה אם לא שהתנה תחלה ואפי׳ תנאי בלב סגי » (רמ״א או״ח רס״ג:י)
« אבל שאר בני הבית מותרין במלאכה עד ברכו » (רמ״א או״ח רס״ג:י)
The Admur HaZaken, in seif ז of siman רס״א, does not treat the lighting: he treats the מזמור, and gives a reading of it worth following closely. Where the usage is to say the מזמור before ברכו, that מזמור brings the tosefet in and forbids melakha; but in the lands he has before him, although the same מזמור is said, work is done until ברכו itself — and his reason is one of original intent: it was not by the מזמור that acceptance had been meant.
« יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת נוֹהֲגִים לוֹמַר "מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת" קֹדֶם "בָּרְכוּ", וּבַאֲמִירַת מִזְמוֹר זֶה הֵם מְקַבְּלִים תּוֹסֶפֶת שַׁבָּת עֲלֵיהֶם וְנֶאֱסָרִין בַּעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ז)
« אֲבָל בִּמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִים לוֹמַר גַּם כֵּן מִזְמוֹר זֶה קֹדֶם "בָּרְכוּ", אַף עַל פִּי כֵן עוֹשִׂים כָּל הַמְּלָאכוֹת עַד "בָּרְכוּ" מַמָּשׁ » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ז)
What this seif ז adds to the חקירה of section 6. One and the same act — saying the מזמור — brings Shabbat in in one place and not in another. It is therefore neither the act alone that operates, nor the intention of the moment alone, but the act as the usage has instituted it. And the same spring is at work for the woman who lights: the Rama speaks of a מנהג, and allows that a condition — even one formed in the heart — removes its effect.
8. Telling a non-Jew during בין השמשות
Seif א, having listed what is not done during בין השמשות, permits two things that seem to run against everything preceding:
« וכן לומר לו לעשות כל מלאכה שהיא לצורך מצוה או שהוא טרוד ונחפז עליה » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:א)
The difficulty. בין השמשות is a doubt of night, and a doubt of night is a doubt over a prohibition of the Torah. How does such a permission find a place in it?
The answer has two layers, and the Admur HaZaken writes them one after the other.
First layer: the doubt is real and it is heavy. During בין השמשות a melakha of the Torah is forbidden by the Torah itself, because it is a doubt of night — and the Admur HaZaken adds that one who performs one is liable to an אשם תלוי.
« אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק לַיְלָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:א)
Second layer: but the Sages did not extend their own decrees to this interval where a mitzva is at stake. This is the principle that carries the whole permission of seif א — and this is why it holds neither for everything nor for everyone: it holds for that whose prohibition, on Shabbat itself, is already only rabbinic.
« וְלִדְבַר מִצְוָה מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָאִסּוּר בְּשַׁבָּת עַצְמָהּ הוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:א)
Now telling a non-Jew is precisely of that kind. Hence the conclusion, which is not a concession but the exact application of the rule:
« וּמֻתָּר לוֹמַר לְנָכְרִי לְהַדְלִיק נֵר לְצֹרֶךְ שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, שֶׁזֶּהוּ לְצֹרֶךְ מִצְוָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ב)
The second case, and it does not rest on the same reasoning. The Rama adds in seif א the man who has already accepted Shabbat an hour or two before nightfall: he too may tell a non-Jew to light. But here the doubt of בין השמשות has nothing to do with it — it is still day. What would forbid him is his own acceptance, and it is that which must be measured.
« וכן מי שקבל עליו שבת שעה או ב׳ קודם חשיכה יכול לומר להדליק הנר ושאר דברים שצריך » (רמ״א או״ח רס״א:א)
The Admur HaZaken gives the reason in seif ג, and it is remarkable: it looks not at the man who asks but at the world around him — elsewhere, at that hour, Jews have not yet accepted Shabbat and are working with their own hands; one is not going to forbid to the man who has accepted what they themselves are still doing.
Two permissions, two foundations. One — during בין השמשות — rests on the nature of the decree and on the mitzva. The other — after an early acceptance — rests on the fact that a personal acceptance does not create night where it is day. Confusing them would lead to extending each by the other, which neither the seif nor the Admur HaZaken does.
9. Practical נפקא מינות — what the machloket changes today
What follows sets out questions, not decisions. Wherever conduct is at stake the text relied upon is given beside it, and whatever is not in the text remains a שאלת רב.
1. The eighteen minutes before sunset
The Shulchan Arukh gives no minutes: it gives a conduct for one who cannot measure, and that conduct is a visible marker.
« ומי שאינו בקי בשיעור זה ידליק בעוד שהשמש בראש האילנות » (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ג)
The Admur HaZaken spells out the intent of that seif in an insertion of his own, worth reading because it gives the principle rather than a figure: the point is to move away from every doubt, and therefore to receive Shabbat well before the beginning of the setting.
« צָרִיךְ לְהִסְתַּלֵּק מִכָּל סָפֵק וּלְקַבֵּל שַׁבָּת הַרְבֵּה קֹדֶם תְּחִלַּת הַשְּׁקִיעָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ו)
The margins printed in calendars — eighteen minutes in many places, more in certain cities — are local usages that translate this principle. They do not follow from the siman and do not carry from one city to another.
2. A candle lit too early, or one that goes out
On a candle lit before the time, the Admur HaZaken is explicit, and on the stringent side: even after the fact, it must be extinguished and relit for Shabbat.
« וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד אִם הִדְלִיק אָז הַנֵּר — צָרִיךְ לְכַבּוֹתוֹ וְלַחֲזוֹר וּלְהַדְלִיקוֹ לְצֹרֶךְ שַׁבָּת » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
On a candle already lit for Shabbat, siman רס״ג reports a view that likewise tends to stringency:
« וי״א שאותו נר שהודלק לשם שבת אסור ליגע בו ולהוסיף בו שמן אפילו אם כבה אסור לטלטלו » (שו״ע או״ח רס״ג:יד)
What is actually to be done when a candle goes out after the acceptance is not settled in siman רס״א: it is a שאלת רב.
3. Northern latitudes
In cities where the interval between sunset and full darkness stretches out, the machloket of section 2 ceases to be theoretical: it is no longer a matter of minutes but sometimes of hours. The siman gives no setting for such places, and neither school was formulated for them. Conduct is taken from a local calendar established by a rabbinic authority, and the underlying question is put to a rav.
4. Receiving Shabbat from פלג המנחה, and praying arvit by day
The Rama permits acceptance from פלג המנחה; the Admur HaZaken, in the same place, distinguishes sharply between acceptance and prayer, and refuses to anticipate the latter. The two sentences are read together, not against one another: the permission bears on the acceptance, the restriction on the hour from which one lights and prays.
« אֲבָל אֵין לְמַהֵר לְהַדְלִיק הַנֵּר וּלְהִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית שֶׁל שַׁבָּת עַד שָׁעָה וּרְבִיעַ זְמַנִּיּוֹת שֶׁקֹּדֶם צֵאת הַכּוֹכָבִים, וְלֹא שֶׁקֹּדֶם תְּחִלַּת הַשְּׁקִיעָה » (שו״ע הרב רס״א:ה)
The question of קריאת שמע — which has its own time, after the emergence of the stars — is not treated in this siman. One who prays arvit by day finds it before him, and it is a שאלת רב.
5. A lighting missed, after sunset
Here one must refrain from writing a decision. What the texts establish is this: בין השמשות is a doubt bearing on a prohibition of the Torah, and the Admur HaZaken says so in the firmest terms in seif א. What the machloket of section 2 puts in play is the instant at which that interval begins — hence the very question of whether one is still before it. No line of this siman allows the particular case to be decided, and this page does not decide it: it is a שאלת רב, to be put without delay.
6. Travelling westward on a Friday
A journey westward lengthens the end of the day; a late landing can place the traveller past an hour at which Shabbat has already entered at the place where he lands. The difficulty lies not in the principle — the measures of the siman apply at the place where one is — but in the borderline cases, and those are put to a rav before departure, not after.
7. Finishing one’s work on Friday
The margin taken before sunset is not an added precaution: according to seif ב it is the very content of the tosefet — ובלבד שיוסיף איזה זמן שיהיה ודאי יום מחול על הקודש (שו״ע או״ח רס״א:ב). What becomes of the duty when that margin has been missed depends on the status debated in section 3, and is not settled here.
8. Young girls who light
The usage, widespread in some communities, of having girls light from a very young age is a usage of education. Whether such a lighting carries with it an acceptance of Shabbat for them does not belong to siman רס״א, which speaks neither of lighting nor of women: it belongs to siman רס״ג, where the Rama gives the usage and allows the prior condition. On what this implies for a child, the page does not pronounce.
Going further
Level 3 — Synthesis: structured recap, memory markers and decision trees.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Admur HaZaken (שולחן ערוך הרב), seif by seif.