Shulchan Aruch · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
Talmudic sources, the underlying chakira,
the shitos of the Rishonim on bein hashemashos — permitting shevusim for a mitzvah or under pressure
📑 Table of contents
- Introducing the sugya — the baraisa of shevus at bein hashemashos
- The underlying chakira — a leniency in the decree itself, or a dispensation in a pressing hour
- Defining the time of bein hashemashos — the machlokes of R. Yehudah and R. Yosi
- The condition “a mitzvah or pressure” — the two heads of the heter
- The psak of the Beis Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch — the Mechaber's wording and his sources
- A shevus close to a melachah — is it included in the heter?
- The sugya of the Rishonim — shevus d'shevus and holding the techum
- The psak of the Acharonim — Taz, Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah
- Practical nafka minos — amirah l'akum and lighting the lamp
- Summary of the shitos and the direction of the halachah
📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — 1 seif
כל הדברים שהם אסורים מדברי סופרים לא גזרו עליהם בין השמשות (וע״ל סי' רס״א וס״ס ש״ז) והוא שיהא שם דבר מצוה או דוחק כיצד מותר לו בין השמשות לעלות באילן או לשוט על פני המים להביא לולב או שופר וכן מוריד מהאילן או מוציא מהכרמלית עירוב שעשה וכן אם היה טרוד ונחפז לדבר שהוא משום שבות מותר בין השמשות ומטעם זה מותר לומר בין השמשות לעכו״ם להדליק לו נר לשבת:
1. Introducing the sugya — the baraisa of shevus at bein hashemashos
The source in the gemara
The din of this siman does not come from a baraisa of its own in Hilkhot Shabbat. It is drawn from a principle of Rabbi which the gemara in Eruvin uses to explain a mishnah about an eruv: one who placed his eruv on a tree, below ten tefachim, has a valid eruv — even though taking it down from the tree is a shevus. If that eruv is valid, it is because the shevus was never decreed upon that moment.
« וְרַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת » (עירובין ל״ב ע״ב)
The mishnah in Shabbat, in the chapter Bameh madlikin, draws up two lists for that same moment — what one does not do then, and what one does — and everything here begins from their standing side by side:
« סָפֵק חֲשֵׁכָה סָפֵק אֵינוֹ חֲשֵׁכָה — אֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין אֶת הַוַּדַּאי, וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים, וְאֵין מַדְלִיקִין אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל מְעַשְּׂרִין אֶת הַדְּמַאי, וּמְעָרְבִין, וְטוֹמְנִין אֶת הַחַמִּין » (משנה שבת ב׳:ז׳ · שבת ל״ד ע״א)
The gemara there gives the reason for the second list:
« בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת סְפֵקָא הוּא, וּסְפֵקָא דְרַבָּנַן לְקוּלָּא » (שבת ל״ד ע״א)
From all of this it emerges that bein hashemashos, being itself a doubt — day or night — did not receive the rabbinic decrees: to decree upon a doubt would be a gezeirah upon a gezeirah. But the first list of the mishnah shows at once that the matter is not unqualified: tithing the certainly-untithed, immersing vessels and lighting lamps remain forbidden at that hour, although they too are no more than shevusim. That tension carries the whole siman.
Two premises join here: (a) bein hashemashos is a doubt, day or night — and if it is still day, there is no prohibition at all; (b) rabbinic prohibitions are not of such weight that the Sages wished to uphold their word where there is both doubt and need. From the two together the heter is born: a shevus in a time of doubt — for a mitzvah or under pressure — was never forbidden to begin with.
2. The underlying chakira — a leniency in the decree, or a dispensation under pressure
Chakira. What is the nature of the heter “at bein hashemashos they did not decree” — did the decree never apply to that time at all, or does it apply, and the Sages lifted it where there is need?
- First side — the decree never applied: from the outset the Sages instituted their shevus only upon the certain day, and bein hashemashos falls outside the takanah. On this side, the heter does not depend on how strong the need is.
- Second side — the decree applied and was then lifted: the gezeirah does apply at bein hashemashos as well, but the very Sages who instituted it stipulated from the first that it would not stand before a mitzvah or pressing need.
From the wording of the Shulchan Aruch — והוא שיהא שם דבר מצוה או דוחק, “provided there is there a matter of mitzvah or pressure” (שו״ע או״ח שמ״ב) — the second side appears to be the right one: to lay down a condition of mitzvah or pressure is to say that without a need the decree stands at bein hashemashos too. The Beis Yosef says this in so many words, and it is this that tips the chakira one way rather than the other:
« אבל במקום דליכא דבר מצוה בין השמשות נמי גזרו משום שבות » (בית יוסף או״ח שמ״ב)
3. Defining the time of bein hashemashos — the machlokes of R. Yehudah and R. Yosi
Which “bein hashemashos” is this halachah speaking of? The tannaim disputed it in Shabbat:
R. Yehudah — from sunset, as long as the eastern face is reddening:
« מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁפְּנֵי מִזְרָח מַאֲדִימִין » (שבת ל״ד ע״ב)
R. Yosi — bein hashemashos is the matter of the blink of an eye:
« בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת כְּהֶרֶף עַיִן, זֶה נִכְנָס וְזֶה יוֹצֵא, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו » (שבת ל״ד ע״ב)
The gemara, in the same place, gives its length according to Rabbah in the name of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel — three quarters of a mil:
« אֶלָּא: תְּלָתָא רִיבְעֵי מִילָא » (שבת ל״ד ע״ב)
In practice we keep stringently to R. Yehudah's position and to its span — as the Beis Yosef sets out in siman רס״א, to which the Mechaber refers here. The heter of siman שמ״ב therefore runs across that whole span, from sunset until the stars come out.
Kashya. If bein hashemashos is a doubt, why is the condition “a mitzvah or pressure” needed at all — a rabbinic doubt is resolved leniently, and that without any need?
Terutz. The rule “a rabbinic doubt is resolved leniently” applies to a doubt that has arisen in the facts, or in a din already born; here the Sages deliberately decreed upon the doubtful moment itself, so that their word not be treated lightly, and merely refrained from upholding it where there is need. It follows that the need is not what “resolves a doubt”: it is a condition written into the takanah itself — a further proof for the second side of the chakira. The Beis Yosef puts it in just these terms when he reads the mishnah of the eruv on the tree:
« משמע דדוקא לדבר מצוה הוא דלא גזרו עליו » (בית יוסף או״ח שמ״ב)
4. The condition “a mitzvah or pressure” — the two heads of the heter
The Shulchan Aruch lays down two alternative conditions, and the ways of learning have divided over how to read them:
- “דבר מצוה”, a matter of mitzvah: climbing a tree or swimming across water to bring a lulav or a shofar — an act of shevus needed for the performance of a mitzvah. It is not required that the mitzvah be specifically biblical.
- “דוחק”, pressure (being harried and hurried): even where there is no mitzvah — when a man is harried and hurried over something whose prohibition is only a shevus, it was permitted to him at bein hashemashos.
The Mechaber's example for the mitzvah:
« כיצד מותר לו בין השמשות לעלות באילן או לשוט על פני המים להביא לולב או שופר » (שו״ע או״ח שמ״ב)
and the example of the eruv, which must be reachable at the very moment the eruv takes effect:
« וכן מוריד מהאילן או מוציא מהכרמלית עירוב שעשה » (שו״ע או״ח שמ״ב)
His example for pressure no longer speaks of a mitzvah at all, but of a man who is hurried:
« וכן אם היה טרוד ונחפז לדבר שהוא משום שבות מותר בין השמשות » (שו״ע או״ח שמ״ב)
5. The psak of the Beis Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch — the Mechaber's wording and his sources
« וכ״כ ה״ה בפכ״ד בשם המפרשים » (בית יוסף או״ח שמ״ב)He then cites the Rambam in two places, and the difference between the two formulations deserves attention. In Hilchos Eruvin the condition is stated as “in a place of mitzvah or in a pressing hour”:
« שכל דבר שהוא מדברי סופרים לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות במקום מצוה או בשעת הדחק » (בית יוסף או״ח שמ״ב, בשם הרמב״ם הל׳ עירובין פ״ו)In Hilchos Shabbat the Rambam adds the negative face, which the Mechaber will not reproduce as such:
« אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיָה שָׁם דֹּחַק וְלֹא דְּבַר מִצְוָה אָסוּר » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פכ״ד ה״י)The Mechaber himself copied the Hilchos Shabbat formulation into a single seif, and set into it an internal cross-reference which the printed text gives in abbreviated form, in parentheses, in the very middle of the seif: it stands between “they did not decree upon them at bein hashemashos” and the condition “provided there is there a matter of mitzvah or pressure”. That cross-reference points to siman רס״א, above, for the time of bein hashemashos itself and for tosefes Shabbat, and to the end of siman ש״ז, for amirah l'akum and the parallel shevusim. Its position in mid-sentence is why the condition, when quoted on its own, is usually read cut off from what precedes it.
A dikduk in the Mechaber's wording: he wrote אסורים מדברי סופרים, “forbidden by the words of the Sofrim” (שו״ע או״ח שמ״ב) — that is, rabbinic prohibitions alone. A biblical melachah, even at bein hashemashos, remains forbidden, and this heter does not touch it at all: if it is still day it is forbidden by the Torah, and where the doubt bears on something severe no leniency was extended.
6. A shevus close to a melachah — is it included in the heter?
The central sharpening point: was every shevus permitted at bein hashemashos, or only a shevus “far” from a melachah?
The plain sense of the baraisa covers everything that falls under the words of the Sofrim. But the Mishnah Berurah opens its commentary on the siman by warning that the word “all” is not to be taken literally, and gives the reason:
« דהם קרובים לבוא לידי מלאכה גמורה דאורייתא גזרו בהם טפי » (משנה ברורה שמ״ב ס״ק א)
Along the way it names cases in which no leniency was extended despite a mitzvah need — among them carrying pachos pachos me-arba amos, and eruvei techumin:
« וכן הרבה פוסקים סוברים דאין מערבין עירובי תחומין ביה״ש אף שהוא לצורך מצוה » (משנה ברורה שמ״ב ס״ק א)
The reason is the one it gave: in a shevus neighbouring a melachah there is concern that one will come to an actual Torah prohibition, and they did not wish to uphold the heter where stumbling lies in wait.
Nafka mina. Telling a non-Jew to light a lamp is a “far” shevus — speech alone — and it was permitted. A shevus whose very object is a safeguard close to a melachah, by contrast, remains within the doubt, and the Mishnah Berurah placed it outside the heter.
7. The sugya of the Rishonim — shevus d'shevus and holding the techum
« לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין אֶת הַוַּדַּאי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פכ״ד ה״י)
« וקי״ל דאין מערבין אלא לדבר מצוה » (בית יוסף או״ח שמ״ב)Since the very case from which the heter is learned is itself a case of mitzvah, the heter does not reach beyond it: this is how the Beis Yosef explains why the mishnah at the end of the second chapter of Shabbat nevertheless forbids tithing the certainly-untithed, immersing vessels and lighting.
The combination called “shevus d'shevus”: when two leniencies meet — a mere shevus, and the time of bein hashemashos, and a mitzvah need — the ground of the heter is the widest this siman offers. But an isolated shevus with no need, and a biblical melachah, find no place in it: the first lacks the condition of the seif, the second falls outside the frame of “what is forbidden by the words of the Sofrim”.
8. The psak of the Acharonim — Taz, Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah
« ומו״ח ז״ל פירש דדוקא לצורך שבת מיירי » (ט״ז או״ח שמ״ב ס״ק א)The Taz does not rest there: from the Semag he derives that anything one is hurried over, and whose absence would cause distress, falls within the heter. He further brings a teshuvah of the Maharshal permitting amirah l'akum at bein hashemashos for a great need or a substantial loss:
« וכתב רש״ל בתשו׳ סי׳ מ״ו שלצורך גדול והפסד מרובה שרינן אמירה לעכו״ם ב״ה » (ט״ז או״ח שמ״ב ס״ק א)And he concludes from the Rambam's wording as the Shulchan Aruch copied it: “pressure” holds even where there is no mitzvah.
« דמשמע דוחק אפי׳ בדבר הרשות » (ט״ז או״ח שמ״ב ס״ק א)
« צ״ע אם במ״ש ב״ה נמי לא גזרו משום שבות » (מגן אברהם או״ח שמ״ב ס״ק א)His ground for doubting is that the departure of the day is unlike its entry: out of doubt, the sanctity of the day has not lapsed.
« דשאני אפיקי יומא מעיולי יומא דמספיקא לא פקע קדושה » (מגן אברהם או״ח שמ״ב ס״ק א)
« ומ״מ למעשה כתב דיש להחמיר במו״ש משום דאין אנו בקיאין בזמן ביה״ש » (משנה ברורה שמ״ב ס״ק ב)(d) and it lays down a reservation that governs the whole seif and would be grave to miss: none of this applies to one who has already accepted Shabbat upon himself.
« ודע דכל סעיף זה לא מיירי כשקבל עליו שבת » (משנה ברורה שמ״ב ס״ק א)On this point it refers to siman רס״א: for one who has accepted Shabbat — even while it is still day, and even because the congregation accepted it — no shevus is permitted to him by himself, even for a mitzvah, except through a non-Jew.
9. Practical nafka minos
- Bringing a lulav or a shofar: one who forgot to prepare them may, at bein hashemashos, climb the tree or swim to bring them — this is a mitzvah need, and it is the Mechaber's own example.
- The eruv: one who forgot to take the eruv down from the tree, or who left it in a karmelis, may at bein hashemashos take it down and bring it out; the Mishnah Berurah explains that without this the eruv would not take effect, and that this is precisely why the matter counts as a mitzvah need (ס״ק ג—ד).
- Lighting the Shabbat lamp: those who forgot to light may, at bein hashemashos, tell a non-Jew to light a lamp for Shabbat — this is the closing clause of the seif itself. The Mishnah Berurah adds that the lighting must be done at once, at bein hashemashos, and not later on during Shabbat (ס״ק ז).
- An optional matter with no pressure: there is no room for leniency — the condition “mitzvah or pressure” is missing. But the Taz teaches that an optional matter attended by a great need or a substantial loss is not that, and does fall within the heter.
- Motzaei Shabbat: the Magen Avraham leaves the question open; the Mishnah Berurah reports the Beis Meir's view that there is no difference, and concludes stringently in practice.
10. Summary of the shitos and the direction of the halachah
The yesod: the Sages did not uphold their shevus decrees over the time of bein hashemashos — which is itself a doubt, day or night — where there is a mitzvah need or pressure.
- The heter bears on rabbinic prohibitions alone; a biblical melachah remains forbidden.
- The indispensable condition: a mitzvah (lulav, shofar, eruv) or pressure (being harried and hurried).
- A shevus close to a biblical melachah was not permitted.
- The time: bein hashemashos of the entry of Shabbat; as for its departure, the Magen Avraham leaves the question open and the Mishnah Berurah concludes stringently in practice.
- One who has already accepted Shabbat upon himself is not within this seif at all.
For practical conduct — according to the custom of one's community and the instruction of a Rav.
Going deeper
Level 3 — Synthesis: structured recap, memory markers, decision trees and rules of thumb.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Admur HaZaken (Shulchan Aruch HaRav).