Shulchan Arukh · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
Talmudic sources, the underlying chakira,
the shitos of the Rishonim and Acharonim on Shabbos Mincha
Subject :
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim, siman 292 — 2 seifim
with the commentaries anchored in the text: Be’er HaGolah, Magen Avraham, Taz, Ba’er Heitev, Sha’arei Teshuvah, Mishnah Berurah
Mishnah Berurah : 9 entries on this siman — from ס״ק א to ס״ק ט
Written by :
Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
- The source of the sugya — Bava Kamma 82a, the takanah of Ezra
- The underlying chakira — is the Shabbos Mincha reading the weekday reading?
- “ואני תפלתי” — the source of the midrash
- “עת רצון” — the nature of the hour of Shabbos Mincha
- Three aliyos and ten verses
- “מפרשה הבאה” — and the ruling when Yom Tov falls on Shabbos
- צדקתך צדק — remembering the death of the righteous
- Not fixing study between Mincha and Maariv — the custom and its reason
- Pirkei Avos in summer, Shir HaMaalos in winter
- Practical nafka minos and the line of ruling
📜 The text of the Shulchan Arukh — 2 seifim
במנחה [אומרים אשרי ובא לציון ואני תפלתי וגו'] (טור) מוציאין ספר תורה וקורין שלשה אנשים עשרה פסוקים מפרשה הבאה ואפי' חל יו״ט להיות בשבת קוראין בפרשה הבאה ולא בשל יום טוב:
Translation. “At Mincha [one says Ashrei, Uva LeTziyon and Va’ani Tefillati, etc. — אומרים אשרי ובא לציון ואני תפלתי וגו׳] (Tur) — a sefer Torah is taken out and three men read ten verses from the coming parashah; and even when Yom Tov falls on Shabbos, one reads in the coming parashah and not in that of the festival.” (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:א)
Translation. “One says Tzidkatecha. And if there falls on it a day such that, were it a weekday, nefilas apayim would not be said on it at Mincha — one does not say Tzidkatecha.” Gloss of the Rama: “And the custom is not to fix a house of study between Mincha and Maariv (Tur; Zohar Terumah p. 279), but one says Pirkei Avos in summer and Shir HaMaalos in winter, and every place according to its custom.” (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:ב)
Who is speaking, and where. The two passages in small type are not from the same hand. The one in seif 2, introduced by הגה, is the gloss of the Rama: it is he, not the Mechaber, who brings the custom of not fixing study and that of Pirkei Avos. The one in seif 1 is a bracketed addition given in the name of the Tur: it lists what is said before the reading, and is not the Mechaber’s own wording. The whole siman is two seifim — the first on the Torah reading, the second on Tzidkatecha and on what follows Mincha.
1. The source of the sugya — Bava Kamma 82a, the takanah of Ezra
The whole siman rests on one line in Bava Kamma. The gemara lists Ezra’s ten takanos, and the first one named is precisely ours: the Torah is read at Mincha on Shabbos.
« עֲשָׂרָה תַּקָּנוֹת תִּיקֵּן עֶזְרָא: שֶׁקּוֹרִין בַּמִּנְחָה בַּשַּׁבָּת » (בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א)
The gemara then returns to each of these takanos to give its reason. For ours, it is a single clause.
« שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרְאִין בַּמִּנְחָה בַּשַּׁבָּת – מִשּׁוּם יוֹשְׁבֵי קְרָנוֹת » (בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א)
Who are the יושבי קרנות? Rashi, on the spot, describes them as those who keep shop all the weekdays, busy with their trade, and who are not present on Monday or Thursday: for their sake an additional reading was instituted. The Alter Rebbe states the same explanation in full.
« בִּשְׁבִיל יוֹשְׁבֵי קְרָנוֹת הַמִּתְעַסְּקִים בִּסְחוֹרָה כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁבוּעַ וְאֵינָם בָּאִים לִשְׁמוֹעַ קְרִיאַת הַתּוֹרָה » (שו״ע הרב רצ״ב:ב)
Two things follow, and they govern all that comes after. First, the Mincha reading is not instituted for Shabbos as such, but for a population — those whom the week keeps away from the beis haknesses. Second, it comes in addition, not in place of the morning reading.
The gemara itself raises a difficulty on the second takanah in the list, that of Monday and Thursday: that reading existed long before Ezra.
« וְשֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרְאִין בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי – עֶזְרָא תִּיקֵּן?! וְהָא מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה מִיתַּקְנָא » (בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א)
It answers that the prophets in the wilderness had already instituted reading on Shabbos, Monday and Thursday, so that Israel should not pass three days without Torah.
« כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָלִינוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּלֹא תּוֹרָה » (בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א)
Ezra’s own contribution, says the gemara, is therefore not the day but the measure of the reading: three aliyos and ten verses. That is the line to be reread in section 5. Note that the gemara does not speak here of reading “in the coming parashah” — that point comes from elsewhere, and is taken up in section 6.
2. The underlying chakira — is the Shabbos Mincha reading the weekday reading?
חקירה. The Torah reading at Mincha on Shabbos: is it of the same kind as that of Monday and Thursday — a make-up reading instituted for the יושבי קרנות — or a reading belonging to Shabbos, bound to the day itself and not to those who hear it? The question is not stylistic: it decides what is read when Yom Tov falls on Shabbos.
The two sides of the chakira.
- Side A — a reading of the same kind as the weekday one. Three aliyos, ten verses, the same takanah of Ezra, the same reason. Shabbos is here only the day on which those missing during the week are found; the reading belongs to the ordinary cycle, and therefore takes the cycle’s parashah.
- Side B — a reading belonging to Shabbos. It would be attached to the hour of Shabbos Mincha itself, a continuation of the morning reading; in which case it would follow what was read that morning, including the Yom Tov reading.
נפקא מינה. Yom Tov falling on Shabbos: what is read at Mincha?
- Side A → the cycle’s parashah, that of the week to come.
- Side B → one could read from the Yom Tov reading.
What the Shulchan Arukh rules, in seif 1: one reads in the coming parashah — that is, side A.
« ואפי׳ חל יו״ט להיות בשבת קוראין בפרשה הבאה ולא בשל יום טוב » (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:א)
The Mishnah Berurah gives the reason, and it is exactly that of side A: this reading is not done “on account of Yom Tov,” since Yom Tov itself has no reading at Mincha.
« דהא הקריאה איננה בשביל יו״ט דהא במנחה ביו״ט אין קורין » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ה)
3. “ואני תפלתי” — the source of the midrash
The verse said before taking out the sefer Torah is not in the Mechaber’s own text: it is in the bracketed addition given in the name of the Tur. One must therefore go to the Tur to learn why it is said.
« ע״פ המדרש ישיחו בי יושבי שער ונגינות שותי שכר וכתיב בתריה ואני תפלתי לך ה׳ עת רצון וגו׳ אמר דוד לפני הקב״ה רבש״ע אע״פ ששתינו ואני תפלתי לך ה׳ » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
The midrash reads two consecutive verses: those who sit at the gate speak of me, and the drinkers make me their song — and immediately after: and as for me, my prayer is to You. David says before the Holy One blessed be He: even after we have drunk, our prayer is to You. The Mishnah Berurah brings the same midrash in a broader formulation.
« הוא על פי המדרש שאמר דוד לפני הקב״ה רבש״ע אין אומה זו כעו״ג ששותין ומשתכרים ופוחזים ואנו לא כן אע״פ שאכלנו ושתינו ואני תפלתי וגו׳ » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ב)
The Taz sums it up in one line, and his wording puts a finger on what ties it to the hour: it is the Shabbos meal just eaten that is in view.
« לפי שישראל אומרים לפני הקב״ה אף ע״פ ששתינו אנו מתפללים לא כשאר אומות » (ט״ז רצ״ב ס״ק א)
What the verse adds to the reading. The gemara in Berachos hears the same verse differently: it finds in it the definition of עת רצון.
« מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וַאֲנִי תְפִלָּתִי לְךָ ה׳ עֵת רָצוֹן״. אֵימָתַי עֵת רָצוֹן — בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר מִתְפַּלְּלִין » (ברכות ח׳ ע״א)
The two readings do not contradict each other, but neither do they coincide: for the gemara, the favourable moment is the one at which the congregation prays; for the midrash brought by the Tur, it is the contrast between the meal and the prayer that gives the verse its force. The Mishnah Berurah, for its part, draws a consequence of din from the verse — and that is where the practice is decided.
« אבל במנחה של יו״ט א״א אותו כיון דאין קורין בתורה שהוא עת רצון עי״ז ומיהו בשבת נהגו לאמרו אף במקום שאין ס״ת וכן אפילו ביחיד » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ב)
Three things are said there: at Mincha of Yom Tov it is not said, for want of a Torah reading that would make the moment an עת רצון; but on Shabbos the custom is to say it even where there is no sefer Torah; and even alone.
And on this the Magen Avraham does not agree. On Yom Tov he says as the Mishnah Berurah does.
« ובמנחה של י״ט א״א אותו כיון דאין קורין בתורה » (מג״א רצ״ב ס״ק א)
But on the case where there is no sefer Torah, he brings the Rivash and draws the opposite conclusion: the verse too would not be said.
« וכתב הריב״ש סי׳ שנ״א דבמקום שאין ס״ת א״א קדיש שלפני י״ח ונ״ל שלא יאמרו ג״כ ואני תפלתי » (מג״א רצ״ב ס״ק ב)
The Mishnah Berurah, in the name of the Acharonim, reports that the custom settled the other way. Both positions are on the page; they are not decided here.
4. “עת רצון” — the nature of the hour of Shabbos Mincha
The phrase עת רצון does not appear in this siman as ornament: it does precise work, and two entries of the commentary use it to reason.
First use — the verse. For the Mishnah Berurah in ס״ק ב, it is the Torah reading that makes the moment an עת רצון — and it is for want of that reading that the verse is not said at Mincha of Yom Tov (see section 3). There the phrase is an effect of Ezra’s takanah, not its cause.
Second use — the hour itself. On צדקתך, the Mishnah Berurah brings the long demonstration of the Bach, and it is there that the hour of Shabbos Mincha is named for its own sake, with an express reference to the Zohar.
« וב״ח האריך להוכיח שלא מת משה בשבת רק בע״ש ולא נגנז עד שבת במנחה בשעתא דעת רצון וכמ״ש בזוהר » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ו)
The distinction is worth holding. In the first use the phrase qualifies a moment because the Torah is read then; in the second it qualifies the hour in itself, whatever is done in it. The Bach uses it precisely to resolve a difficulty of chronology: Moshe would not have died on Shabbos but the day before, and it would be his burial that took place at this hour.
What the siman places at this hour, and on whose authority:
- the verse ואני תפלתי — the Tur’s addition in seif 1, explained by the Mishnah Berurah in ס״ק ב;
- the Torah reading — the takanah of Ezra, Bava Kamma 82a;
- צדקתך — seif 2 of the Mechaber, explained by the Mishnah Berurah in ס״ק ו;
- not fixing study between Mincha and Maariv — the gloss of the Rama, whose reason is given in section 8.
One must resist the temptation to make these four into a single motive. The commentaries do not trace them all to the same reason: the first depends on the reading, the last two on the death of Moshe. This is the ordinary reading of the Acharonim on this siman; the kabbalistic commentators give another, which the Rama himself signals by his reference to the Zohar, and which is not developed here.
5. Three aliyos and ten verses
Having shown that the day was not Ezra’s contribution, the gemara says what was. And it gives each of the two numbers a distinct referent.
« מֵעִיקָּרָא תִּקְּנוּ חַד גַּבְרָא – תְּלָתָא פְּסוּקֵי, אִי נָמֵי תְּלָתָא גַּבְרֵי – תְּלָתָא פְּסוּקֵי, כְּנֶגֶד כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים; אֲתָא הוּא, תַּיקֵּן תְּלָתָא גַּבְרֵי וְעַשְׂרָה פְּסוּקֵי, כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין » (בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א)
« וְעֶזְרָא תִּקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרִין כֵּן בְּמִנְחָה בְּכָל שַׁבָּת מִשּׁוּם יוֹשְׁבֵי קְרָנוֹת. וְגַם הוּא תִּקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרִין בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם וְלֹא יִקְרְאוּ פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה פְּסוּקִים » (רמב״ם הלכות תפלה פרק י״ב הלכה א׳)
קושיא. In this halachah the Rambam expressly attaches “three men and not fewer than ten verses” to Monday and Thursday, and he does not say here that the Mincha reading is taken from the coming parashah. Where, then, does what the Shulchan Arukh writes in seif 1 come from?
תירוץ. From the mishnah in Megillah and the baraisa the Tur brings — not from this halachah of the Rambam. The Tur first cites the Yerushalmi for the takanah itself, then the mishnah for the number of aliyos.
« עזרא תיקן להם לישראל שיהו קורין בתורה בשבת במנחה ובשני ובחמישי » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
« בשבת במנחה ובשני ובחמישי קורין ג׳ אין פוחתין מהם ואין מוסיפין עליהם ואין מפטירין בנביא » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
Three aliyos, none subtracted and none added, and no haftarah: the measure is closed on both sides. The point about the coming parashah comes from the baraisa read in section 6.
The Alter Rebbe, in his Shulchan Arukh, joins the two parts in a single sentence, and it is the handiest formulation to keep.
« עֶזְרָא תִּקֵּן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ ג׳ אֲנָשִׁים קוֹרִין בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּצִבּוּר בְּכָל שַׁבָּת בְּמִנְחָה עֲשָׂרָה פְּסוּקִים אוֹ יוֹתֵר מִפָּרָשַׁת שָׁבוּעַ הַבָּא » (שו״ע הרב רצ״ב:ב)
6. “מפרשה הבאה” — and the ruling when Yom Tov falls on Shabbos
Where does “the coming parashah” come from? From a baraisa in Megillah that the Tur brings, and which is a machlokes of tannaim on the starting point of the reading.
« במקום שפוסקין שבת שחרית שם קורין במנחה במנחה שם קורין בב׳ בב׳ שם קורין בה׳ דברי ר״מ רבי יהודה אומר במקום שפוסקין בשבת שחרית שם קורין במנחה בשני ובחמישי ולשבת הבאה והכי הלכתא » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
The two shitos. For Rabbi Meir, each reading resumes where the previous one stopped — Mincha resumes after shacharis, Monday after Mincha, Thursday after Monday: the parashah advances in stages through the week. For Rabbi Yehudah, all these readings start again from the same point, where one stopped on Shabbos morning, and only the following Shabbos advances. The Tur concludes: והכי הלכתא — the halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah.
It is from here, and not from the takanah of Ezra alone, that the Mechaber’s expression comes: the Mincha reading is taken from the parashah of the week to come, and each weekday reading returns to the same place.
« ואפי׳ חל יו״ט להיות בשבת קוראין בפרשה הבאה ולא בשל יום טוב » (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:א)
קושיא. Yom Tov falling on Shabbos: in the morning one read the Yom Tov reading, not the cycle’s parashah. Why then, at Mincha, not continue in what was read that morning?
תירוץ. The Beis Yosef brings the Rokeach, who states the din and proves it.
« כתב הרוקח בסי׳ ש״כ י״ט שחל להיות בשבת קורין במנחה פרשה הנוהגת ולא של י״ט » (ב״י או״ח רצ״ב)
The proof is one line, and it is decisive: were it not for Shabbos, there would be no reading at all at Mincha of Yom Tov.
« אלמלא שבת אין קריאה במנחה בי״ט » (ב״י או״ח רצ״ב)
In other words: this reading is not on the account of the festival, it is on the account of Shabbos. Yom Tov gives it nothing, and can therefore impose nothing on it. The Mishnah Berurah says the same, more briefly still.
« דהא הקריאה איננה בשביל יו״ט דהא במנחה ביו״ט אין קורין » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ה)
We land exactly on side A of the chakira of section 2: the Mincha reading remains a reading of the cycle, and Shabbos is its support.
7. צדקתך צדק — remembering the death of the righteous
« אומרים צדקתך ואם חל בו יום שאלו היה חול לא היו אומרים בו במנחה נפילת אפים אין אומרים צדקתך » (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:ב)
The Mechaber states the custom and its limit without giving its reason. That is in the Tur, in the name of Rav Sar Shalom, and it binds together in one stroke the two things this siman places at the hour of Mincha: Tzidkatecha, and the custom of not fixing study.
« וכתב רב שר שלום הטעם שתקנו לומר צדוק הדין על שמת משה רבינו באותה שעה וגם נהגו שלא לקבוע מדרש בין שתי תפלות משום חכם שמת כל בתי מדרשות בטילין » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
The Tur adds that Rabbeinu Tam drew something further from it.
« ומזה הטעם נמי הנהיג ר״ת שלא לקבוע אז סעודה » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
The Mishnah Berurah, in ס״ק ו, extends the motive to three righteous men and not to one alone.
« דמתו בו יוסף משה ודוד ולכן נהגו שלא לקבוע אז מדרש כי חכם שמת כל המדרשות בטלים » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ו)
The Alter Rebbe says it in the same terms.
« נוֹהֲגִים לוֹמַר ג׳ פְּסוּקִים "צִדְקָתְךָ", וְהֵם כְּעֵין צִדּוּק הַדִּין עַל ג׳ צַדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּפְטְרוּ בְּשָׁעָה זוֹ, יוֹסֵף, מֹשֶׁה וְדָוִד » (שו״ע הרב רצ״ב:ה)
The three verses. The three verses of Tzidkatecha are verses of Tehillim, and the Tur gives their order according to two customs:
- צדקתך צדק לעולם ותורתך אמת (תהלים קי״ט:קמ״ב);
- וצדקתך אלהים עד מרום (תהלים ע״א:י״ט);
- צדקתך כהררי אל (תהלים ל״ו:ז׳).
The Tur reports that the two customs do not have the same order, and states his preference — with an argument from form.
« ונוהגים באשכנז לומר תחלה צדקתך צדק לעולם ואחריו וצדקתך אלהים ואחריו צדקתך כהררי אל ובספרד אומרים תחלה צדקתך כהררי אל ואחריו וצדקתך אלהים ואחריו צדקתך צדק לעולם וזה נכון יותר שבזה הסדר כתובות בס׳ » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
The argument is that of the order of the book of Tehillim: beginning with כהררי אל (chapter 36), then עד מרום (chapter 71), then צדק לעולם (chapter 119), one follows the order in which they are written. The Tur does not declare the other custom wrong: he says that this one is more correct.
And the chronology raises a difficulty. The Taz, in ס״ק ב, first brings the motive in the name of the Tur and of Rav Sar Shalom.
« שבאותה שעה מת משה רבינו ע״כ אומרים צידוק הדין וע״כ אין קובעין מדרש כי חכם שמת כל מדרשות בטלים » (ט״ז רצ״ב ס״ק ב)
Then he brings the objection of the Asheri — the piskei HaRosh — and the Mordechai, in the chapter ערבי פסחים.
« דא״א לומר שמשה מת בשבת דהא אמרינן שאותו יום כ׳ ס״ת » (ט״ז רצ״ב ס״ק ב)
And he offers his own yishuv: Rav Sar Shalom would not have meant that Moshe died on Shabbos, but on the eve of Shabbos at the hour of Mincha.
« אלא בערב שבת בזמן המנחה מת ולפי שבשבת ניתנה התורה ע״י משה עושים זכרון בזמן המנחה לבטל המדרש » (ט״ז רצ״ב ס״ק ב)
The Mishnah Berurah for its part brings the way of the Bach, who resolves it differently: death on the eve, burial at the hour of Shabbos Mincha (see section 4). And the Tur himself gives a second reason, independent of all this chronology.
« ויש מדרשים שמוכיחים שלא מת באותה שעה ומה שאומרים צדקתך בשביל הרשעים שחוזרים לגיהנם » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
Three explanations therefore stand together on the page — the death of Moshe, the burial, the judgement of the wicked resuming at the departure of Shabbos — and the siman holds none of them against the others.
נפקא מינה — when is Tzidkatecha not said? The Mechaber’s criterion is not a list of days: it is a test. If that day, were it a weekday, would not have carried nefilas apayim at Mincha, Tzidkatecha is not said. The Mishnah Berurah in ס״ק ז unfolds the case of Rosh Chodesh, and extends it — a point misread if it is not read to the end — to the case where it is the next day that is Rosh Chodesh.
« פי׳ בין שיום השבת הוא ר״ח בין שיום א׳ שאחריו הוא ר״ח וא״כ אלו היה חול לא היו אומרים במנחה נפילת אפים שכבר חל במקצת יום שלאחריו ולכן גם עתה א״א צדקתך » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ז)
The Alter Rebbe gives, as examples, כְּגוֹן חֲנֻכָּה וְרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ (שו״ע הרב רצ״ב:ז), and he too adds the case of the following day. These are examples, not a closed list: it is the test of the seif that decides, day by day.
8. Not fixing study between Mincha and Maariv — the custom and its reason
It is the Rama, not the Mechaber, who states this custom in the siman.
« ונהגו שלא לקבוע מדרש בין מנחה למעריב » (רמ״א או״ח רצ״ב:ב)
The Rama refers there to two sources — the Tur and the Zohar Terumah. The reason the Tur gives is the one already read in section 7: when a sage dies, all the houses of study cease. The Alter Rebbe states it in the same terms.
« וְנָהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִקְבּוֹעַ מִדְרָשׁ בֵּין מִנְחָה לְמַעֲרִיב, כִּי חָכָם שֶׁמֵּת בֵּית מִדְרָשׁוֹ בָּטֵל » (שו״ע הרב רצ״ב:ו)
Two qualifications that change everything, and must not be left aside.
First: this is not a prohibition. The Mishnah Berurah says so in so many words in ס״ק ח, and at the same time fixes the extent of the custom — what is set aside is study in a group, not study in pairs at home.
« ואינו איסור אלא מנהג לזכרון בעלמא והטעם כנ״ל בסק״ה ודוקא שלא ללמוד בחברותא אבל שנים שנים לומדים בבתיהם » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ח)
The Magen Avraham says the same in the name of the Mordechai, and refers like the Mishnah Berurah to Yoreh De’ah, siman 344.
« ובמרדכי כתוב שלא ללמוד כונתו שלא ללמוד בחברותה אבל שנים שנים לומדים בבתיהם » (מג״א רצ״ב ס״ק ה)
Second: the custom bears on one precise moment only. In ס״ק ט the Mishnah Berurah restricts “between Mincha and Maariv” to the time close to nightfall, and draws from this the custom of giving the derashah before Mincha.
« היינו כשהוא סמוך לחשיכה ולכן המנהג לדרוש קודם מנחה ואם נמשכה הדרשה עד סמוך לחשיכה אזי לא יאמרו פרקים או שיר המעלות כדי שיוכלו לקיים סעודה ג׳ בזמנה » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ט)
It goes further still. After reporting in the name of the Eliyah Rabbah that the Maharal of Prague was seen more than once giving a derashah between Mincha and Maariv, it concludes as to the practice of its own day.
« וע״כ נראה דבזמנינו אין למנוע זה כידוע שמצוי בעו״ה באיזה מקומות שעוסקין אז כמה אנשים בבהמ״ד בשיחה בטלה ובודאי טוב יותר לשמוע אז דברי מוסר כדי שלא יבואו לזה » (מ״ב רצ״ב:ט)
יסוד. The custom is a custom of remembrance, not a din. That is why the commentaries can, without contradicting themselves, keep it in principle and narrow its reach: group study set aside, study in pairs kept, the derashah moved before Mincha, and — where the alternative is idle talk — preference given to words of mussar. None of these sentences would be possible if it were a prohibition.
9. Pirkei Avos in summer, Shir HaMaalos in winter
The Rama’s gloss does not stop at what is not done: it says what is done instead.
« אבל אומרים פרקי אבות בקיץ ושיר המעלות בחורף וכל מקום לפי מנהגו » (רמ״א או״ח רצ״ב:ב)
What the Rama contrasts, and what he does not. He contrasts “fixing a house of study” with “saying” Pirkei Avos or Shir HaMaalos: the one is a session of study, the other a recitation. He also contrasts summer with winter. What he does not contrast is an Ashkenazi custom with a Sephardi one: in his gloss the two recitations are the same custom in two seasons, and he ends by referring every place to its own usage.
The Tur does name a difference between Ashkenaz and Sefarad — but it bears on the hour, not on the season.
« ונוהגין באשכנז לומר פרקי אבות במנחה וכ״כ רב עמרם ובספרד אומרים אותם בשחרית » (טור או״ח רצ״ב)
In Ashkenaz at Mincha, and Rav Amram writes likewise; in Sefarad at shacharis. To make Shir HaMaalos a Sephardi custom is to confuse these two divisions.
נפקא מינה. The Mishnah Berurah in ס״ק ט places these recitations after seudah shelishis in the order of priority: if the derashah has run on to the edge of night, neither the perakim nor Shir HaMaalos are said, so that seudah shelishis may be eaten in its time (see the quotation in section 8).
10. Practical nafka minos and the line of ruling
| Question | What the source actually holds |
|---|---|
| Source of the reading | The takanah of Ezra — Bava Kamma 82a |
| Number of aliyos | Three, none subtracted and none added (Tur, in the name of the mishnah in Megillah) |
| Number of verses | Ten, from the coming parashah (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:א) |
| Yom Tov falling on Shabbos | The cycle’s parashah, not that of Yom Tov (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:א ; מ״ב ס״ק ה) |
| ואני תפלתי at Mincha of Yom Tov | It is not said — Mishnah Berurah and Magen Avraham agree (מ״ב ס״ק ב ; מג״א ס״ק א) |
| ואני תפלתי without a sefer Torah, or alone | Machlokes: the Mishnah Berurah reports the custom to say it (מ״ב ס״ק ב); the Magen Avraham, in the name of the Rivash, writes not to say it (מג״א ס״ק ב) |
| צדקתך | It is said, except on a day that as a weekday would not have carried nefilas apayim at Mincha — including when it is the following day that prevents it (שו״ע או״ח רצ״ב:ב ; מ״ב ס״ק ז) |
| Fixing study between Mincha and Maariv | A custom to refrain, and not a prohibition; only group study is in view (רמ״א רצ״ב:ב ; מ״ב ס״ק ח) |
| Pirkei Avos in summer, Shir HaMaalos in winter | Gloss of the Rama, “every place according to its custom”; they are not said if the derashah has run to the edge of night (רמ״א רצ״ב:ב ; מ״ב ס״ק ט) |
היסוד הקובע. Two seifim, and two distinct logics that are better not melted into one. Seif 1 belongs to the takanah of Ezra: a reading instituted for those whom the week keeps away, which belongs to the cycle of the parashah and which Yom Tov does not displace. Seif 2 belongs to remembrance: Tzidkatecha and the custom of not fixing study have, in the Tur, one and the same reason. What holds them together is the hour — which the Mishnah Berurah names, in ס״ק ו and in the name of the Bach, בשעתא דעת רצון.
Going further
Level 3 — Synthesis: a structured review, memory anchors and rules of thumb.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Alter Rebbe (Shulchan Arukh HaRav).