Daf Ditty Taanis 27: Neshama Yeseirah

1
§ The mishna taught: And the Israelites of that priestly watch assembled in their towns and
read the act of Creation. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that they must read this
specific portion, derived? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rav Asi said: Were it not for the
non-priestly watches and the Temple service, heaven and earth would not continue to exist, as
it is stated:

‫ ַבָּמּה ֵאַדע ִכּי‬,‫ ֲאֹדָני ְיה ִוה‬:‫ח ַויּ ֹאַמר‬ 8 And he said: 'O Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that
.‫ִאי ָרֶשָׁנּה‬ I shall inherit it?'
Gen 15:8

“And he said: Lord God, by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?”

The Gemara explains this verse. Abraham said: Master of the Universe, perhaps the Jews will
sin before You. Will You treat them as You did the generation of the flood and the generation
of the dispersion, and destroy them? God said to him: No. Abraham said before God: Master
of the Universe, tell me, with what shall I inherit it? How can my descendants ensure that You
will maintain the world? God said to Abraham:

‫ ְקָחה ִלי ֶﬠְגָלה‬,‫ט ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֵאָליו‬ 9 And He said unto him: 'Take Me a heifer of three years old,
‫ ְוַא ִיל‬,‫ ְוֵﬠז ְמֻשֶׁלֶּשׁת‬,‫ְמֻשֶׁלֶּשׁת‬ and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old,
.‫ ְוגוָֹזל‬,‫ְמֻשָׁלּשׁ; ְוֹתר‬ and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon.'
Gen 15:9

“Take for Me a three-year-old heifer, and a three-year-old goat, and a three-year-old ram, and
a turtledove, and a young pigeon”

2
God was alluding to the offerings, in whose merit the Jewish people, and through them the entire
world, will be spared divine punishment.

Abraham said before God: Master of the Universe, this works out well when the Temple is
standing, but when the Temple is not standing, what will become of them? God said to him:
I have already enacted for them the order of offerings. When they read them before Me, I
will ascribe them credit as though they had sacrificed them before Me, and I will pardon
them for all their transgressions. Since the offerings ensure the continued existence of the Jewish
people and the rest of the world, the act of Creation is read in their honor.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they would not fast on Sunday? Rabbi Yoḥanan
said: Due to the Christians, as Sunday is their day of rest, and they would claim that even the
Jews ascribe significance to their special day. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Because it is

3
the third day after the creation of man, who was created on Friday, and the third day of recovery
from a wound or sickness, in this case one’s very creation, is considered the most painful.

Reish Lakish said: They would not fast on Sunday due to the added soul, as Reish Lakish said:
An added soul is given to man on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat it is removed
it from him, as it is stated:

,‫אוֹת ִהוא‬--‫ וֵּבין ְבֵּני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬,‫יז ֵבּי ִני‬ 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel
-‫ ָﬠָשׂה ְיהָוה ֶאת‬,‫ֵשֶׁשׁת ָיִמים‬-‫ ִכּי‬:‫ְלֹעָלם‬ for ever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and
‫ ָשַׁבת‬,‫ וַּביּוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי‬,‫ָהָא ֶרץ‬-‫ַהָשַּׁמ ִים ְוֶאת‬ earth, and on the seventh day He ceased from work
{‫ }ס‬.‫ַו ִיָּנַּפשׁ‬ and rested.' {S}
Ex 31:17

“He ceased from work and rested [vayinafash]”

which he expounds as follows: Since one has rested and Shabbat has passed, woe for the soul
[vai nefesh] that is lost, the added soul that each individual relinquishes. Consequently, one is still
weak from this loss on Sunday.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

4
Summary

5
 The Priestly Watch and The Non-Priestly Watch1

There are two major ideas that stay with me from today's daf. The first is that the priestly watch
is taken very seriously. The second is that the non-priestly watch involves recitation of Torah
verses, and the rabbis are concerned that we always recite at least three Torah verses.

The non-priestly watches are observed by any Israelite, not necessarily a Kohen or Levi. The
rabbis explain that 24 priestly watches were established to ensure that the offerings made by the
community were witnessed by the community. David was the person who recommended 24
priestly watches over Galilee and Jericho. Before his decision, Moses had instructed Itamar and
Elazar that each would be responsible for four priestly watches - eight families in all.

Each day, the fast was taken on by a representative of that priestly family. They would ascend to
Jerusalem and pray that the daily offering would be received with favour. Simultaneously,
representatives from the non-priestly watch would stay in their assigned towns and fast, praying
on different days. On Mondays they prayed for those at sea, on Tuesdays for those in the desert,
on Wednesdays for children with croup, and on Thursdays for pregnant and nursing
women. Fridays and Saturdays were exempt because of Shabbat, and the rabbis debate about why
Sundays were also free from fasting and specific prayer by the non-priestly watch. Fear of arousing
anti-semitic fervour in their Christian neighbours comprise most of that discussion.

One of the more interesting reasons for foregoing the fast on Sunday is offered by Reish
Lakish. He suggests that we are given an extra soul on Fridays and Saturdays that allow us to
enjoy the true glory of creation. At the conclusion of Shabbat, that soul is taken away again. Reish
Lakish argues that we require Sunday to mourn the loss of that extra soul. Personally, I love Reish
Lakish's thinking in its practical applications: a full weekend!

It is notable that sick children and pregnant/ nursing mothers are given special
consideration. Usually the discomfort of women and children does not merit the attention of our
rabbis. But here, the non-priestly watch is specifically asked to pray for these
concerns. Why? Could it be that the non-priestly watch is more connected to the discomfort and
the pain of the people? The priestly watch is made up of those who are often immersed in isolating
tasks.

Our second focus is on the portions recited by the non-priestly watch. The rabbis argue about
which verses should be said. They also argue about how those verses should be assigned. We
learned previously that the portions are sometimes shared by two people and sometimes said
individually. Some portions are made up of five verses. Splitting the portion between the groups
of chanters, sometimes only two verses of Torah are recited, but we know that we must recite at

1
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/

6
least three verses at a time. The rabbis come up with creative and interesting suggestions to solve
this challenge.

THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF "MISHMAROS"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara says that originally there were 16 Batei Avos -- 8 from the family of Elazar and 8
from the family of Isamar. In the times of David ha'Melech, the family of Elazar increased
significantly, and the 8 family groups of Elazar were divided into 16 Batei Avos, for a total of 24
(16 from Elazar and 8 from Isamar). The Gemara asks what the source is that the family of Elazar
doubled. Perhaps it was the family of Isamar which doubled. The Gemara proves that the family
of Isamar remained the same from the verse, "One Beis Av was apportioned to Elazar, and
apportioned, apportioned to Isamar" (Divrei ha'Yamim I 24:6).

What is the Gemara's proof from this verse? The verse implies that twice as many Batei Av were
apportioned to Isamar than to Elazar, the opposite of what the Gemara is trying to prove. How
does the verse imply that Elazar had twice as many Batei Avos as Isamar?

(a) RASHI explains that the words "apportioned, apportioned" mean that the number of
Mishmaros that had been apportioned previously to Isamar remained and nothing more was added.

(b) Some explain that the verse refers to the lottery which was conducted in order to determine the
new order of the Mishmaros, now that eight additional Mishmaros were added. How many lots
were included in the lottery? To represent the 16 Batei Avos of Elazar, 16 lots were included. How
many lots were included to represent the 8 Batei Avos of Isamar? If only 8 lots would have been
put in the lottery for the 8 Batei Avos of Isamar, the Batei Avos of Elazar would have a far greater
chance of being chosen first. Therefore, they wrote each one of the Batei Avos of Isamar
on two lots in order to make the lottery fair and equal.
That is what the verse means when it says "apportioned, apportioned to Isamar" -- the repetition
of the word "apportioned" refers to the two lots that were written for each of the Batei Avos of
Isamar, since they had half as many Batei Avos.

The NACHALAS DAVID in HAVEN B'MIKRA (at the end of Nachalas David) cites this
explanation but rejects it for several reasons. First, the Gemara cites the verse to prove that the
number of Batei Avos of Isamar did not double. According to this explanation, however, perhaps
they did double -- from four to eight. Second, the verse itself does not read well according to this
explanation. The verse refers to the people themselves and mentions nothing about the lots. Third,
it is not logical to suggest that they made two lots for one Mishmar in order to double their chances
in the lottery. What would happen if both lots of the same Mishmar were selected? It obviously
would have to be discarded, and thus the lottery itself would have become less meaningful.

2
https://dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-027.htm

7
(c) The NACHALAS DAVID suggests an original explanation which is consistent with the
straightforward meaning of the verse, and which conforms with the Gemara perfectly. He explains
that since Elazar was older than Isamar, it was decided that a Mishmar from the family of Elazar
would serve first. That Mishmar would be followed immediately by one from Isamar (so as not to
leave him too far behind Elazar). Therefore, in order to determine the order of the Mishmaros, they
made two separate boxes and conducted two separate lotteries: one for the family of Elazar and
one for the family of Isamar. Elazar drew the first one and Isamar the second, and they continued
to draw lots in an alternating manner, first Elazar and then Isamar.

The increase of the family of Elazar from 8 Mishmaros to 16 meant that each family group became
divided into two families. Consequently, it was decided that the spin-off from the family group
would always serve immediately after the first half of the original family group served, because it
would not be fair to have the spin-off serve at an entirely different time than the first half of that
family (since they used to serve together as one Mishmar). Therefore, when they drew lots to
determine the order of the Mishmaros from Elazar's family, they drew only 8 lots for the original
8 Mishmaros. The spin-off family groups would serve immediately after the original Mishmar
from which they came.

They placed into a box 8 lots, representing the original 8 Mishmaros of Elazar, in order to
determine the order of all 16 Mishmaros of Elazar (the lottery determined the order of the original
Mishmaros, each of which was followed by its spin-off group). A lot was first chosen from Elazar's
box to determine which of his Mishmaros would be first (and second, the spin-off Mishmar). Then,
the first lot from Isamar's box was chosen to determine which Mishmar from Isamar would serve
first, after the first two Mishmaros of Elazar.

However, it emerged that the drawing of one lot from Elazar's box determined the order
of two Mishmaros (the original Mishmar and its spin-off). If they subsequently chose only one lot
from Isamar's box, Isamar would have only one Mishmar following Elazar's two Mishmaros, and
thus Isamar would not be on an equal standing with Elazar. Therefore, after they chose one lot
from Elazar's box, they chose two lots, and thus two Mishmaros, from Isamar's box. Then, one lot
was chosen again from Elazar's box (which determined their third and fourth Mishmaros), and
then two lots were again chosen from Isamar's box to determine their third and fourth Mishmaros.
This process continued until the fourth lot was chosen from the box of Elazar (which determined
the seventh and eighth Mishmaros of Elazar) and the seventh and eighth lots were chosen from the
box of Isamar (which determined the seventh and eighth Mishmaros of Isamar). After that, there
remained no Mishmaros from the family of Isamar to choose (since they had only eight), and there
were still eight Mishmaros from Elazar which remained to be chosen (by selecting four lots). Thus,
the final four lots were all chosen from Elazar's box.

This is subtly and succinctly expressed by the verse. In the lottery which selected the order of the
Mishmaros of Elazar, one lot was chosen to determine two Mishmaros -- the original Mishmar and
its spin-off. Afterwards, two lots were chosen from the Mishmaros of Isamar to
select two Mishmaros ("apportioned, apportioned").

8
Further support for this explanation is found in the verses which list the Mishmaros of the families
of Elazar and Isamar. Whenever the verses list the Mishmaros, each verse randomly lists one, two,
or three Mishmaros. Here, however, each verse lists exactly two Mishmaros. Why do the verses
here list the Mishmaros in this specific manner? The answer is that the verses are listing them the
way they were chosen by the lots, two at a time.

The Nachalas David uses this approach to explain a cryptic statement in the Yerushalmi. The
Yerushalmi here (Ta'anis 4:2) states that the seventeenth Mishmar was called "Chezir" because it
served at the point at which the cycle "returned" ("Chazar") to the family of Elazar. All of the
commentators are at a loss to explain the intent of the Yerushalmi.

The VILNA GA'ON in Divrei ha'Yamim explains that the Yerushalmi alludes to the Gemara here
which says that they added another 8 Mishmaros to Elazar. Since there originally was a total of
only 16 Mishmaros (8 from Elazar and 8 from Isamar), the fact that there was a seventeenth
Mishmar indicated that new Mishmaros had been added. The Vilna Ga'on's explanation, however,
is not consistent with the wording of the Yerushalmi. According to his explanation, the Yerushalmi
should say that the seventeenth Mishmar was called "Chezir" because "it hints that" 8 Mishmaros
were added from Elazar. There is no indication that the seventeenth Mishmar itself was from
Elazar. What does the Yerushalmi mean when it says that "the cycle returned to Elazar"?

According to the explanation of the Nachalas David, the intent of the Yerushalmi is clear. After
the sixteenth Mishmar was chosen by the lottery (8 from Elazar and 8 from Isamar), no more lots
were drawn for the lottery of Isamar (because there were no more Mishmaros to choose from
Isamar), and thus "the cycle" of drawing lots "returned to Elazar" -- all of the remaining lots were
drawn from the lottery of the Mishmaros of Elazar!

DIVIDING A VERSE IN THE TORAH

Rav and Shmuel argue about how five verses are to be divided between two people during the
Torah reading when each person must read at least three verses. Rav says that they repeat a verse:
the first person reads the first three verses, and the second person repeats the last verse that the
first person read and continues with the last two verses. Shmuel says that they split a verse: the
first person reads the first two verses and half of the third, and the second person reads the second
half of the third verse and the last two verses.

The Gemara explains that Rav disagrees with Shmuel because he rules that "any verse which
Moshe Rabeinu did not divide, we are not permitted to divide." This principle is generally
understood to mean that whenever a verse from the Torah is read or quoted, it must be read in its
entirety. Since the Halachah follows the opinion of Rav with regard to how to divide five verses
between two people (SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 423:2), the Halachah should also follow Rav
with regard to dividing any verse: whenever a verse is read it must be read in its entirety.

In practice, however, many incomplete verses from Tanach are recited in various contexts. The
following are some examples of such instances:

9
1. In the Hagadah of Pesach, several verses are quoted but not in their entirety: Devarim 6:3 in the
paragraph, "Said Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah"; Devarim 6:20 in the paragraph, "The wise son";
Shemos 12:16 in the paragraph, "The wicked son"; Shemos 1:22 in the paragraph, "And our labor";
Shemos 3:9 in the paragraph, "And our oppression"; Divrei ha'Yamim I 21:16 in the paragraph,
"And with an outstretched arm"; the second half of Devarim 6:21, "Avadim Hayinu" ("... we were
slaves") is quoted as the opening phrase for the paragraph of Avadim Hayinu and the first words
of that verse, "v'Amarta l'Vincha..." ("And you shall say to your son...") are omitted.

2. In the Kidush of Shabbos night, only the second half of Bereishis 1:31 ("va'Yehi Erev va'Yehi
Voker Yom ha'Shishi") is recited.

3. In the Kidush of Shabbos morning, many have the practice not to say the entire paragraph of
"Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos," and yet they nevertheless say the last words of the paragraph, "Al
Ken Berach Hash-m Es Yom ha'Shabbos va'Yekadshehu," which is an incomplete verse from
Shemos 20:11.

4. When the Chazan returns the Sefer Torah to its place after Keri'as ha'Torah, he says, "Yehalelu
Es Shem Hash-m Ki Nisgav Shemo Levado," the first half of Tehilim 148:13. The congregation
recites after him, "Hodo Al Eretz v'Shamayim," the second half of that verse. Why is the
congregation permitted to recite an incomplete verse?3

The MAGEN AVRAHAM discusses this problem in several places (see end of OC 51, beginning
of OC 282, and OC 422:8). In OC 282, he suggests that whenever verses are recited in the context
of praises and supplications in the prayer service, the principle does not apply, and partial verses
may be recited.

This explains why a partial verse may be recited in Kidush of Shabbos night and Shabbos day, and
as part of the prayer service when the Sefer Torah is returned (see also CHASAM SOFER
OC #10). This also explains why a partial verse, "Avadim Hayinu," may be recited in the Hagadah;
that paragraph merely paraphrases the verse in the context of a narrative discussion.

However, this explanation does not suffice for all of the instances in which partial verses are
recited, such as in the Hagadah when the verses are cited as proofs for various Derashos.

The MAGEN AVRAHAM (in OC 422:8) quotes the KOL BO who suggests that this principle
applies only to verses in Torah and Nevi'im, but not to verses in Kesuvim. This approach is also
proposed by the ME'IRI (Sukah 39a).

However, this answer suffices only for those instances in which incomplete verses from Kesuvim
are recited (such as Divrei ha'Yamim I 21:16 in the Hagadah, and Tehilim 148:13 when the Sefer
Torah is returned). Moreover, the logical basis for differentiating between verses in Nevi'im and
verses in Kesuvim is not clear.4

3
See RAV JOSEPH PEARLMAN's comprehensive discussion of this topic in HA'MEIR, 5753
4
See TOSFOS to Rosh Hashanah 34a, DH Maschil, and the RAN there who assert that the books of Nevi'im differ from Kesuvim
in certain Halachic matters. See, however, TOSFOS YOM TOV, Rosh Hashanah 4:6, who asserts that the Ran rescinded this
view. In contrast, see RAN to Megilah 27a, TOSFOS to Bava Basra 13b, and REMA YD 284

10
RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS (in NEFESH CHAYAH, Milu'im 51:7) writes that the
principle that "any verse which Moshe Rabeinu did not divide, we are not permitted to divide"
does not mean that every time we quote a verse, we must quote it in its entirety. Rather, it means
that we are not permitted to end a verse in a place where Moshe Rabeinu did not end it. We may,
however, omit the first words of a verse and start reading the verse in the middle, but we must
continue from that point until the end of the verse.

This understanding of the principle seems to be inherent in the wording of the principle itself. The
words "Kol Pesuka d'Lo Paskei Moshe..." literally mean, "Any stop which Moshe did not stop, we
are not permitted to stop." The emphasis of the rule is on stopping the verse at a point at which
Moshe Rabeinu did not stop the verse. However, we may begin the verse from any point. (J.
TAUB and Y. SHAW in THE MALBIM HAGGADAH, Targum Press, p. 84, fn. 20.)

This approach explains all of the partial quotations of verses in the Hagadah. In every instance, the
verse is quoted until its end, and only the beginning words of the verse are omitted. This approach
also explains the partial verses quoted in Kidush of Shabbos night, Kidush of Shabbos day, and
when the Torah is returned after Keri'as ha'Torah.5

RAV JOSEPH PEARLMAN shlit'a of London points out that the Acharonim do not seem to
accept this approach (see also RASHBA to Berachos 14b) since they do not use it to answer their
questions about certain partial verses that we recite. The NETZIV (in MEROMEI SADEH to
Berachos 12b) also clearly does not accept it.

HALACHAH: Although the final answer above (c) permits the recitation of a partial verse
as long as that part of the verse is said until its end, the MACHATZIS HA'SHEKEL (OC
422:8) writes that when the congregation recites "Hodo Al Eretz v'Shamayim" when the
Sefer Torah is returned to its place, one should recite the first half of the verse quietly with
the Chazan and then continue with "Hodo Al Eretz v'Shamayim."6

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:7

Throughout the week, the individuals whose turn it was to represent the Jewish people
in ma’amadot (see yesterday’s daf, or page) would involve themselves in fasts and prayer:

• On Monday, on behalf of those traveling the seas

• On Tuesday, on behalf of those traveling in the desert
• On Wednesday, on behalf of those suffering from contagious disease (askara or croup)
• On Thursday, on behalf of pregnant and nursing women.

5
The Chazan, who says aloud only the first half of Tehilim 148:13, presumably says the second half together with the Tzibur
6
According to the MA'ASEH RAV, the VILNA GA'ON recited the entire verse in the case of Kidush and in the prayer service,
and not the partial verse as it is printed in the Sidur.
7
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit2531/

11
Members of the ma’amadot did not fast on Friday, in order to honor Shabbat, and they certainly
did not fast on Shabbat itself. Why didn’t they fast on Sundays? A number of explanations appear
in the Gemara. Rabbi Shmu’el bar Nahmani says that Sunday is the third day after man was created
(Adam was created on Friday, just before Shabbat began) and the third day is a day of weakness
(see Bereshit 34:25). The explanation presented by Rabbi Yohanan is “because of the notzrim.”

Notzrim is ordinarily translated as Christians, and, in fact, most of the commentaries explain that
the ma’amadot did not fast on Sundays due to the concern that the Christians would take offense
at the fact that the Jews were fasting on the day of the week that was their day of celebration.
The Maharsha suggests a different angle: that fasting – and not working – on the Christian day of
rest would appear to support the new religion’s practices and beliefs. Nevertheless, the Maharsha,
as well as other commentaries, point out that there are many historical problems with these
explanations.

Another approach to Rabbi Yohanan’s statement is to read the word as notzarim – the ones who
were created – rather than notzrim, in which case RabbiYohanan’s explanation is similar to the
one offered by Rabbi Shmu’el bar Nahmani.

The Me’iri suggests that the term notzrim refers to Babylonians, based on the passage
in Yirmiyahu (4:16) – “Notzrim are coming from a faraway land” – which is interpreted by
the Radak to be referring to the army of the Babylonians. According to the Me’iri, the Babylonians
had a day of celebration on Sundays, so the Sages did not want to establish anything special on
that day.

The Gemara teaches that whenever a person recites a verse, he must say the entire verse, and not
read only partial phrases.8

The Achronim write that one may interrupt a verse in the middle if the phrase he is reading ends
with an ,‫ אתנחתא‬and some say this also applies to a as this indicates a significance break.

The cantillation symbols have been transmitted from Sinai, and this type of a break is considered
as if Moshe ended the verse at this point. The 271:10 (‫ )מחבר‬states that we introduce kiddush on
Friday night with the paragraph of ‫ ויכולו‬.

This paragraph is from Parashas Bereshis, where, at the end of the description of ,we
are told that Hashem rested on Shabbos. But Rema points out that we also add the final two words
from the description of the sixth day. We begin.

8
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20027.pdf

12
The reason, he explains, is that the phrase opening this of ‫ראשי תיבות‬
spells out the name of Havayah. point out that even with this hint of the ‫תיבות ראשי‬
just adding the two words has no meaning. Therefore, it is recommended to start with
the beginning of the phrase, and to say, This is also the solution
of the and

The poskim note that even reciting the entire phrase this because, problem a presents
is still only part of an entire ‫ פסוק‬.

Our Gemara tells us that we are not allowed to interrupt a verse except at a place where Moshe
Rabeinu ended it. Therefore, states that it is actually better for a person to start the
verse from its very beginning, and to quietly say ‫ את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאוד‬.‫ויהי ערב ויהי בקר‬
then continue loudly.

writes that this is not necessary. He says that the ‫ די‬that we cannot recite partial
is only when we read them as we learn them as . Here, however, when we are reading
the words as part of a tefilla, it would be permitted. In addition, Chasam Sofer mentions that there
is a concern with starting from the beginning of the ‫ פסוק‬,because the Midrash tells us that
refers to the .Therefore, it is inappropriate to mention at our Shabbos
table a verse which has this drasha connected to it.

A chossid once came to Rav Kolonymus Kalman Shapira, hy”d, for advice. ”I have tried so hard
to feel the holiness of Shabbos, but I am still so far from it. How can I really feel the neshamah
yeseirah, the extra level of the soul, that is given to every Jew every single Shabbos?” The Rebbe
answered, “You have to yearn to grasp the extra neshamah with great determination. You must
focus your thoughts on this as much as you can, especially on erev Shabbos and Shabbos itself.
Imagine that you are a businessman who stands to make a fortune if he is alert and can close
on a certain deal. Of course, your entire self would be immersed in thinking about the affair
such that it would be hard for you to entertain thoughts of anything else. What would make you
stay so focused? The knowledge that this is the only way in which you will be able to take the
best advantage of your opportunity would keep your mind on your goal. Why do some people
fail to achieve all that they might in their business? Their inability to maintain this focus makes
them like children whose minds are drawn after a thousand different thoughts, one after the
other. Such people are likely to fail when a tricky deal presents itself.”

The Rebbe concluded, “Each Shabbos you have an opportunity to connect to Hashem in a new
way—it is an opportunity that will never return, since every Shabbos is completely different.
You must remember what you stand to lose if you don’t manage to focus your will properly. This
is the meaning of the Gemara in Taanis 27: the word ‫ וינפש‬represents ‫—נפש אבדה וי‬woe to me
because I will lose my extra neshamah after Shabbos.’ We feel the ‫יתירה נשמה‬to the degree that

13
we sense how precious is this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Because the holiness of this
particular Shabbos will never return again!”

Sara Ronis writes:9

King David is famous for many things — defeating the giant Goliath, sinning with Bathsheba, his
music and more. 1 Chronicles 23-26 tells us that David was famous for something else too:
dividing the Levitesand priests into 24 divisions. The mishnah tells us that each division, or watch,
would take their turn serving in the Temple for one week at a time, so that as many families as
possible could participate in the work.

The mishnah we read yesterday adds another element to this rotation: watches of non-priests
(“Israelites”) who rotated through their own Temple service. We know that the priestly watches
would have performed the sacrifices and the Levite watches would have musically accompanied
their work. What kinds of work were the Israelite watches expected to do?

Today’s daf offers two different answers to this question, depending on where one lived.

Israelites who live in Jerusalem were expected to be present at the Temple in Jerusalem when
sacrifices were offered during their watch week:

Since it is stated: “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering of food, which
is presented to me made by a fire, of a sweet savor to me, you shall guard the sacrifice to me in
its due season” (Numbers 28:2), but how can a person’s offering be sacrificed when he is not
standing next to it? The early prophets instituted 24 priestly watches. For each and every
priestly watch there was a non-priestly watch in Jerusalem of priests, Levites and Israelites.

The mishnah reads the verse from Numbers as insisting that the entire community of Israel must
offer the daily sacrifice and that in order for the sacrifices to come from all of Israel, all of Israel
must be represented at the Temple at the moment of sacrifice.

Israelites who live outside of Jerusalem and cannot be present in the Temple are given a different
assignment — they are expected to stay home and read the Torah, specifically the story of
creation in Genesis. Given that the watches are about the division of labor in offering sacrifices,
you would think that they would be required to read the biblical texts about sacrifices found
in Leviticus, but the mishnah is quite clear that it’s actually the stories of creation that are
required. The Gemara next explores the connection between creation and sacrifices:

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha said that Rav Asi said: Were it not for the non-priestly watches, heaven
and earth would not continue to exist, as it is stated: And he (Abraham) said: Lord God, by
what shall I know that I shall inherit it? (Genesis 15:8)

9
Myjewishlearning.com

14
Abraham said: “Master of the Universe, perhaps the Jews will sin before you. Will you treat
them as the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion?” God said to him:
“No.”

Abraham said before God: “Master of the Universe, tell me, with what shall I inherit it?” God
said to Abraham: “Take for me a three-year-old heifer, and a three-year-old goat, and a three-
year-old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”(Genesis 15:9)

This is one of the most famous ways the rabbis create midrash — by interpolating statements into
biblical text. Here, Rav Asi adds a few lines to a conversation between God and Abraham found
in Genesis 15 and reads God’s promise as contingent on Abraham (and his descendants) offering
sacrifices. For Rav Asi, it is through sacrifices that the land (and all of creation) is maintained.
And because sacrifices are humanity’s way of maintaining creation, the Israelite watches are
required to read the story of creation and make that connection explicit.

We might think that those who work in the Temple, the priests and Levites, are most vital to its
operations. And we might also suppose that those regular Israelites who can be physically present
are the most crucial to communal sacrifice. But our daf inverts that idea. Instead, it is those who
are most distant, the Israelites in cities across the land, who are credited with the biggest job of all
— upholding the entire world.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:10

Our daf (Ta’anit 27a) quotes an Amoraic debate whether the essential contribution of music in the
Beit HaMikdash was vocal or instrumental. According to Shmuel, it was vocal – with the purpose
of the instrumental music being to accompany the Levites song, whereas according to Rabbi
Shimon ben Elazar it was instrumental - with the vocal song being an accompaniment to the music
of the flutes and the other instruments that were used in the Beit HaMikdash.

Significantly, we see in Gemara Sukkah 51a that this question is understood to be a Tana’itic
debate, and it is there where we are told, as also confirmed by the Rambam (Hilchot Klei
HaMikdash 3:3), that ‫ – עיקר שירה בפה‬the essential contribution of music is vocal.

Of course, there may be those who think that this debate merely relates to the forms of worship of
the past. Yet especially since the conclusion of this debate is that ‫עיקר שירה בפה‬, we learn from here
that - even today - we should use our voice to serve God in the most effective way possible, and
that the songs and melodies that we sing can qualitatively improve the way in which we connect
to God.

With this in mind, I’d like to share the beautiful words of the Sefer Chassidim (158) who states:
‘When you pray, do so with a melody that is pleasant and sweet in your ears. The melody will
cause you to pray with feeling, since it leads your heart to follow the words. When you ask God

10
www.rabbijohnnysolomon .com

15
for something, use a melody that fortifies the heart, and when you utter God’s praise, use one
that makes the heart rejoice. Your lips will then be filled with love and joy before God, who gazes
into your heart. You will be able to bless Him with abundant love and joy.

Reflecting on this teaching, and given that we live at a time where so many people are looking to
connect to God, it is important that we reiterate the importance of song and the significant impact
that a stirring melody can have on how we pray and worship.

So if you’ve yet to pray today, and if you wish to do so, maybe make today a day when you
accompany your prayers with a melody – because by doing so, ‘your lips will then be filled with
love and joy before God, who gazes into your heart.’

Community Standing By
Mark Kerzner writes:11

The Temple service and the sacrifices were on behalf of everybody. Can people go about their
business as if nothing is happening? For that reason, the appointed members of the congregation
were doing "maamadot" or "standing by" - as community representatives.

Now, the whole procedure was as follows. When the appointed week for each priest group would
come, they would go to the Temple. However, half of them went to the labor market in Jericho to
do agricultural work, which was plentiful and provided sustenance for the priests who served in
the Temple. Some say that they would change after three days so that everybody would get a
chance for Temple service. There were twenty-four groups of priests in total, and thus they would
serve in the Temple two weeks a year on average.

The community representative would be standing by, saying prayers, reading from the Torah, and
fasting. Some were in Jerusalem, but some remained in their cities, collecting themselves in the
synagogue. Each group was essential, and the sacrifices could not be brought if it was missing.

The Temple service was what assured the existence of Heaven and the Earth. What is the source
for this? In the phrase, "Whereby shall I know that I will inherit Israel?" The complete conversation
went like this. Abraham said, "Master of the Universe! All is well now, but if Jews sin, will you
destroy them?" God said, "No." Abraham continued, "How do I know?" God said, "Take three
calves and three goats, etc." This means that the merit of the sacrifices will atone."

11
https://talmudilluminated.com/taanit/index.html

16
 Christians, the Talmud, and American Politics

Ari Lamm writes:12

People participating in Daf Yomi—the daily study by Jews across the world of a new page from
the Babylonian Talmud—recently encountered censorship of one of the Talmud’s pejorative
references to Jesus. This act of whitewashing was deeply influenced by the history of Christian
thought about both Judaism and the wider world.

But the censors were not Christians. They were Jews.

The story begins with the seventeenth page of Tractate Avodah Zarah, which contains one
of several talmudic passages that refer to Jesus. Throughout the ages, these references were often
erased or altered by Christian censors (although we still possess manuscripts that escaped this fate).
This phenomenon was the subject of a recent entry in Talmud Yisraeli’s discussion of the passage
in Avodah Zarah. Talmud Yisraeli is an Israel-based, weekly educational pamphlet for children
containing brief synopses of material from the previous week’s Daf Yomi. It comes out in both a

12
https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/christians-the-talmud-and-american-politics/

17
Hebrew version and an English version. As my Lehrhaus colleague, Elli Fischer, pointed out,
whereas the Hebrew version (primarily addressed to the Israeli public) described the censorship of
material in the Talmud “about Jesus,” the English translation dispensed with this reference to
Jesus. Instead, this version mentioned censorship of material “about Christianity.” As Fischer
noted, the irony is that the very same Jews excoriating Christians for censoring talmudic references
to Jesus are themselves doing just that.

But the problem here is larger than just censorship. A worldview that demands the replacement of
“Jesus” with “Christianity” itself reflects fundamental assumptions about both Judaism and
broader society that are deeply shaped by the history of Christianity.

To begin, there’s the claim that is implicit in this act of censorship, namely, that the Talmud has
something to say explicitly about Christianity.

It does not.

The Talmud never speaks about Christianity as a whole, nor, with one possible exception, does it
mention Christians as a group. The Talmud’s interest is in Jesus, the individual. It conceives his
followers as students (idolatrous ones, to be sure, at least for the Babylonian Talmud), not
worshippers. It refuses to treat them as a full-fledged community. The only possible exception
comes in the form of the two references to Sunday observance in tractates Avodah Zarah (6a, 7b)
and Ta’anit (27b). But even in those cases most manuscripts—at least in the Avodah
Zarah versions—refer to “the Nazarene” (in the singular, i.e., Jesus), not “the Nazarenes” (in the
plural, i.e., Christians).

Why is this important? For two reasons, one relating to the relationship between Judaism and
Christianity, and one with broader implications for American society.

First, contrary to popular wisdom, Judaism and Christianity—certainly in the first century CE, but
even later, as well—were not immediately recognizable, either to insiders or outside observers, as
distinct religious communities. In fact, it took a great deal of time for the idea of “Judaism” and
“Christianity” as mutually exclusive groups or religions to crystallize. People in antiquity
continued not to think in these terms for centuries. The traditions in the Babylonian Talmud
referring to Sunday as an idolatrous holiday do appear to assume that its observers are idol
worshippers, but we still must be careful not to interchangeably use “Jesus” and “Christianity,” as
if one implies the other. After all, the assumption that the former inevitably and as a matter of
course birthed the latter has been a core tenet of Christian supersessionism and antisemitism for
almost two millennia.

But the significance of replacing “Jesus” with “Christianity” extend far beyond the Judaism, and
its relationship with Christianity. It possesses implications, as well, for contemporary American
political discourse.

18
For example, one distinguishing feature of rabbinic literature in late antiquity is that it never really
developed a genre historians call “heresiology.” Heresiology is the “science,” as it were, of heresy,
and it became a staple of the literature produced by early Christians beginning in the second
century CE. Heresiologists emphasized the importance of creating (they would say “describing”)
boundaries for their community and thought the best way to do so was by relentlessly calling out
all those whom they felt deviated from right belief or practice.

To this end, the heresiologists compiled exhaustive catalogues of “heretical” groups, and
meticulously—if not accurately—detailed all the ways in which they were dangerously wrong. A
quick glance at the heresiological work Against Heresies by Irenaeus, the second century bishop
of Lyon, reveals colorful entries on the deviant followers of Valentinus, Ptolemy, Marcos,
Carpocrates, Marcion, the Ebionites, and many more. The Panarion by the fourth century writer,
Epiphanius of Salamis, contains entries on no less than eighty different types of heresy.

Rabbinic literature has none of this.

That is not to say that the Talmud’s rabbis were not interested in drawing the boundaries of their
own community or maintaining normative standards on everything from belief to practice. They
certainly were. What they were not interested in was relating to wrongdoers systematically as
a community—let alone as multiple communities—the details of which could then be described
and catalogued in intimate detail.

The rabbis simply developed general, catch-all terms for all sorts of people, practices, or beliefs
that they considered unacceptable, like minut (probably best translated as “dangerous
distinctiveness”), or meshummad (“one who has become destroyed”). While these terms
would eventually be used as code words for Christianity, or Jewish apostates to Christianity, that
development took several centuries. But as far as rabbinic literature in late antiquity is concerned,
one couldn’t use the terms “minim” or “meshummadim” to signify specific, historical communities
that existed, in the same way that one very much could refer to the “Montanists,” “Valentinians,”
or “Elchasaites” of Christian heresiological literature. Even terms in rabbinic literature
that do refer to specific social groups—like “Sadducee” or “Boethusian”—are used
interchangeably with each other In any case, they appear to have been inherited by rabbinic
literature from earlier historical periods.

The bottom line is that while the rabbis’ insistence on clear boundaries produced outsiders, they
did not dwell on different communities of outsiders. This includes Christianity, which is why the
Talmud does not engage with it as a distinct social category. Rather than spending time defining
other groups, and analyzing what was wrong with them, rabbinic tradition overwhelmingly
emphasized its own values, and its own vision for society. Naturally, this vision itself entailed that
people would be excluded, perhaps just as many as those whom the heresiologists wished to expel.
But the insistence on presenting a case for something, rather than a case against something else,
is instructive.

So much of American political discourse has devolved into heresiology. We have grown obsessed
with cataloguing the evils of our opponents and detailing the deviations of supposed allies. I don’t

19
mean to minimize the sins at stake, but in light of the continuing corrosion of American civic
discourse, it is high time for a course correction. What we need now is a positive vision for the
future. We require a set of values to cherish rather than deficiencies to abhor.

In other words, we don’t need, at least at this moment in history, the heresiological fixation upon
others. We need the Talmud’s focus upon ourselves, upon a positive case for a moral and just
society.

Why Early Jews Didn’t Care at All About Christians

In a struggle against the idea of history, Jewish life strives to change as
little as possible, even when new religions take over

ADAM KIRSCH writes:13

13
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-90

20
In this week’s Daf Yomi reading, the fourth and last chapter of Tractate Ta’anit, I was surprised to
encounter a word that, as far as I can remember, has not previously appeared in two years of
Talmud reading. That word is “Christians” (notzrim, derived from the name of Nazareth, Jesus’
home). My surprise came not from the fact that the rabbis of the Talmud recognized the existence
of the rival faith, but from their ability to ignore it so completely for so long. After all, we hear
regularly in the Talmud about the Romans, who ruled Palestine at the time the Talmud was being
compiled, and occasionally about the Persians, who ruled Babylonia.

The era of the Talmud’s composition—the third to fifth centuries C.E.—was exactly the period
when Christianity went from being a persecuted sect to the official religion of the Roman Empire,
and the largest faith in the Near East. It would be natural to expect the rabbis to have something to
say about this religion, which emerged out of Judaism and utterly transformed the world in which
Jews lived. Indeed, it would be natural to assume that the Talmud itself was in some sense a
response to Christianity—a way of defining Judaism as a religion of laws just at the moment when
Christianity declared those laws to be obsolete.

Perhaps I will find as I continue to read the Talmud that there are indeed more references to
Christianity; but so far, it has been conspicuous by its absence. The rabbis simply do not seem to
feel that the existence of Christianity, its critique of Judaism, or its tremendous success in the world
pose any real challenge to Judaism as they understand it. The point of rupture in Jewish history, as
the rabbis see it, was not the birth of Jesus but the Temple’s destruction, which suddenly made
much of Jewish ritual and practice impossible. And this rupture was, crucially, internal to
Judaism—not a challenge from another belief system, but one that involves repairing and
reinventing Jewish life to meet changed circumstances.

In Western culture, we tend to see Christian history as absolute history, and we learn about Jewish
history largely in terms of its interactions with Christianity—whether that means persecution in
the Crusades, or emancipation at the time of the French Revolution, or the failure of European
assimilation in the 20th century. One reason I find it so illuminating to read the Talmud is that it
presents an autonomously Jewish understanding of the world, in which Jews act rather than react.
Indeed, the Talmud might even be said to struggle against the whole idea of history. Seder Mo’ed
seems to inhabit a timeless time of ritual repetition, during which Jewish life strives to change as
little as possible, keeping itself ready for the arrival of redemption.

The reference to Christianity in Ta’anit 27b comes during a discussion of fasting, which is this
tractate’s main subject. In earlier chapters, we have heard about the procedures for fasting in
response to drought and other calamities. Yet there are also certain fast days that are fixtures on
the Jewish calendar, and the last chapter of Ta’anit explains their rationale. Some of these fasts
remain central to Jewish practice—the 9th of Av, and to a lesser extent the 17th of Tammuz, which
falls today, in a rare coincidence of the Daf Yomi calendar with the Jewish calendar. But the
Talmud begins by talking about a whole category of fasts that disappeared from post-Temple
Judaism: the fast of the “non-priestly watches.”

The priests who served in the Temple were divided into 24 “watches” or shifts, each the
responsibility of a certain priestly family. (The Koren Talmud lists the names of these families,
which were preserved in Jewish memory long after the Temple fell.) We’ve heard about these

21
watches in earlier tractates; but now we learn that each of them had a corresponding watch made
up of Israelites, common Jews who didn’t belong to the castes of Kohanim or Levites. These people
served as representatives of the people at large, witnessing the sacrifices that were brought in the
name of the whole Jewish nation. When a priestly watch was serving in Jerusalem, some members
of the corresponding non-priestly watch would accompany them, while other members stayed
home and read specified Torah portions.

From Monday to Thursday, the non-priestly watch would fast, and each day, the Gemara explains,
was devoted to a specific worthy cause. “On Monday they would fast for seafarers,” because God
created the sea on the first Monday of Creation; “on Tuesday for those who walk in the desert,”
because the dry land was created on Tuesday; on Wednesday “over croup, that it should not befall
the children”; and on Thursday “for pregnant women and nursing women.” Friday they would
break the fast to prepare for Shabbat, and of course they would not fast on Shabbat itself. But what
about Sunday—why didn’t the non-priestly watches fast that day?

“Due to the Christians,” Rabbi Yochanan explains, with enigmatic concision. This could either
mean that the Jews did not want to appear to be observing Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, or that
they were afraid to anger the Christians by appropriating their holy day. In either case, this
precaution reveals that the Jews of Talmudic times were well aware of their Christian neighbors
and of at least some of the practices of Christianity. Other rabbis, however, have very different
explanations for the refusal to fast on Sunday. To Reish Lakish, this was “due to the added soul.”
On Shabbat, Judaism has long believed, Jews are endowed with an extra soul, as a sign of the day’s
holiness. At the close of Shabbat this soul departs, and Reish Lakish imagines that on Sunday Jews
are convalescents, still recovering from the loss. It would be dangerous for them to fast in this
weakened state.

Soon the Gemara turns to the fixed fast days, the 9th of Av and the 17th of Tammuz, and explains
why they are so terrible in Jewish memory. We have already seen, in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, that
the rabbis like to imagine many important events in Jewish history all taking place on the same
date. Such coincidences are signs that history is not random but follows a predetermined course.
How else could it be that the First Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar on the 9th of Av,
and then, 500 years later, the Second Temple was destroyed by Titus on the same date?

And if the dates need a little massaging to line up, the rabbis aren’t bothered. The Book of Kings
actually says that the First Temple was burned down on the 7th of Av, and Jeremiah says it
happened on the 10th. How to reconcile these dates with each other, and with the traditional date
of the 9th? The rabbis explain: On the 7th “gentiles entered the sanctuary,” on the 8th they
desecrated it, on the 9th they set fire to it, and on the 10th it burned down completely. Any of these
dates could conceivably have been chosen as the official anniversary, and indeed Rabbi Yochanan
says, “Had I been alive in that generation, I would have established the fast only on the tenth of
Av, because most of the sanctuary was burned on that day.” But the sages hold that “it is preferable
to mark the beginning of the tragedy,” on the ninth.

The two temples are not the only tragedies associated with the 9th of Av. “A meritorious matter is
brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day,” the Gemara
says, and so bad things seem to be attracted to the 9th like a magnet. On the same date, the spies

22
sent by Moses into Canaan returned with their discouraging prophecies—a sign of lack of faith
that God punished by decreeing that the whole generation of the Exodus had to die before the
Israelites could enter the Promised Land. More than a millennium later, the same date marked the
fall of Beitar during the Bar Kochba rebellion, and the date when the Romans plowed the city of
Jerusalem as a sign of its total destruction. The 17th of Tammuz also has several calamities
associated with it. On that day, King Manasseh placed an idol in the Temple; centuries later, the
Romans forbade the Jews to offer sacrifices there. The secret logic of history is revealed through
this pattern of sin and retribution.

But the rabbis make what seems like a deliberate decision to end this tractate, which is devoted to
calamity and repentance, with an episode of pure joy. According to the mishna, “There were no
days as joyous for the Jewish people as the 15th of Av and as Yom Kippur, for on them the
daughters of Jerusalem would go out in white clothes … and dance in the vineyards. And what
would they say? ‘Young man, please lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself for a
wife. Do not set your eyes toward beauty but set your eyes toward a good family.’ ” There is
something almost Shakespearean about this midsummer idyll, with its dancing maidens and
wooing lads. It would be a mistake, the Talmud seems to say, to think of Jewish history solely
through the lens of fasting; we must remember the feasting, too.

23
Rav Binyamin Zimmerman writes:14

The Year of Shabbat

The connection between Shabbat and shemitta goes beyond the lexical; shemitta first

appears in the Torah, in Parashat Mishpatim, alongside Shabbat. Additionally, according to the

opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see lesson 2), shemitta appears next in the Torah in a verse that explicitly

mentions only Shabbat. The sabbatical themes of shemitta dominate the longest passage about it,

in Behar, where the root “shavat” appears a fitting seven times.

We also saw that shemitta is a yearlong Shabbat which takes the spiritual aspects and

perspective that are usually limited to once a week and inculcates them in one's very personality

over an entire year. This challenge of putting one's work aside for a year is rewarded by those who

find the strength of character to be gibborei khoach, embracing a year of social and spiritual

growth that can do wonders for any society which manages to implement it. Fittingly, this is how

Rav Kook describes the atmosphere of the shemitta year:

14
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/neshama-yetera-shabbat-and-shemitta

24
 Rav Kook then goes on to explain how the laws of shemitta enable this reality, something

we will keenly feel as we analyze the halakhot.

To better understand the impact that shemitta can have on society it pays to begin with an

analysis specifically of the passage in Parashat Mishpatim, in which shevi'it, the seventh year, is

first mentioned, in association with Shabbat. This will allow us to better understand both

the neshama yetera (extra soul) of each Sabbath as well as how shemitta impacts the years before

and after it.

Shemitta in Parashat Mishpatim

After describing the seventh year as a period of “tishmetenna u-ntashtah” and mentioning

the benefits for the poor of the nation and even the animals, the Torah follows this with a

description of Shabbat.

This is in turn followed by a description of the three pilgrimage festivals. We might have

connected Shabbat to them, but the fact that both shemitta and Shabbat talk about the implications

25
of rest for the landowner, the underprivileged and the animal connects them not only in context,

but in content as well.

It is worth noting that at this point in the Torah, not too much is known about Shabbat

itself. Shabbat initially appears in the Torah as the pinnacle of creation, later appearing in Parashat

Beshalach in the context of the unique rules in relation to the manna which falls during the nation's

sojourn in the desert (possibly alluded to at Mara as well). Shabbat also appears in the Ten

Commandments in Parashat Yitro, but there is much to know about Shabbat that has yet to be

explained as of Parashat Mishpatim.

The relationship in these verses between shemitta and Shabbat goes beyond the numerical

similarity: after six units, the seventh is holy. Additionally, the prohibitions of Shabbat

and shemitta are not mentioned in the negative form, as in both cases (although using different

words, tishmetenna and tishbot), the Torah requires ceasing one's usual affairs.

As mentioned in the last lesson, commentators like Rav Hirsch note the relationship

between Shabbat and shemitta: both recognize God's rule over the world and seek equality on the

social plane. Similarly, Rav Hirsch elsewhere (Vayikra 25) writes:

26
 However, it is the idea of rest which characterizes a good deal of their unique shared

quality. Shabbat doesn't merely sanctify time; it sanctifies the Jew as well. The same is true

for shemitta.

The Neshama Yetera of Shabbat

The concept of some form of expanded soul being afforded the Jew during the weekly

Shabbat already appears in the Talmud (Beitza 16a), where Resh Lakish states:

Resh Lakish derives from the phrase “shavat va-yinafash” that after Shabbat ends, one

loses a little part of one's soul, referring to the additional soul that accompanies the Jew on

Shabbat. Nefesh literally means spirit, but here it is a verb. It refers to some internal form of

refreshment and even restoration that affects the inner part of one's personality.

A number of issues, however, remain unclear. Firstly, what is the nature and purpose of

this expanded soul? Secondly, the terminology of the Talmud is a little confusing. On the one

hand, it calls the additional soul neshama, yet it cites a verse which references the nefesh.

In fact, both nefesh and neshama are terms for the soul, but the fact that they are often used

in different contexts indicates that they are not completely interchangeable. Both terms are used at

the beginning of Bereishit in the context of the creation of man, but differently. God blows into

man a nishmat chayim and he becomes a nefesh chaya (a term also used for animals).

27
In fact, Kabbalistic thought states that the human soul, which is what differentiates humanity from

the rest of the animal kingdom, is actually made up of three parts, from the aforementioned verses.

Nefesh refers to the "animal soul" that man has contained in his blood, as he shares many

of biochemical life processes with the animal kingdom, and is therefore represented by the

term nefesh, as the Torah says, "The spirit of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11). Man

might have a unique nefesh, but the entire animal kingdom possesses some version of it.

The neshama, however, is unique to man; it comes directly from God's innermost Essence,

His "breath".

Rav Aryeh Kaplan summarizes the three elements of man's soul thusly:

Yet, if this is true; the term va-yinafash should logically be a reference to an

expanded nefesh rather than an expanded neshama. It is not just semantics, as this issue lies at the

heart of the dispute between the commentators as to the nature of this expanded soul: is it primarily

a physical endowment, much more suited for the term nefesh; or a spiritual one, much more

appropriate for the term neshama?

28
A Physical or Spiritual Addition?

Rashi (Beitza 16) focus on the heightened physical elements of one's soul on Shabbat, as

he explains that the neshama yetera provides rochav lev (a heightened consciousness), menucha

(repose), simcha (joy), and tranquility, including the ability to eat more and not find one's soul

disgusted by it.

In Shitta Mekubbetzet, Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi explains this differently, noting that the

added soul on Shabbat is actually a spiritual addition, “a godly abundance and additional

intelligence to be able to occupy oneself in Torah, and analyze the acts of God.”

These two explanations differ as to whether the expanded soul is a heightened physical

capability to eat with an expanded appetite, etc. or a more spiritual frame of mind.

In fact, the Shela takes serious issue with the understanding that the neshama yetera allows

man to eat more, although he does not mention Rashi specifically. He disputes the idea that

the neshama yetera is rooted in the physical.

Some commentators explain that Rashi believes that the expanded soul is a spiritual

addition; however, the simple understanding of hiss view is supported by others, e.g. Rabbeinu

Chananel (Taanit 28a) and Daat Zekenim (Shemot 16:22).

In truth, a careful reading of Rashi's comment indicates that there are

both nefesh and neshama aspects to this Shabbat addition; i.e., a physical component and a

spiritual one, which are meant to be merged. This may help us understand another mystery, how a

reference to God, “va-yinafash,” can describe man’s experience on Shabbat; some explain that it

refers to refreshment, obviously unnecessary for God, but also a greater connection to the spiritual.

Rashi himself writes (Shemot 31:17):

29
Essentially, Rashi and Ibn Ezra too explain that this phrase is to be understood to mean that

physical resting can cause spiritual rejuvenation as well.

Some commentators even explain va-yinafash in the verse not as a reference to God but as

a reference to the world. It was only on Shabbat that the entire world was equipped with a purpose.

Alshikh takes this a step further and explains that the world’s creation was not complete until

Shabbat, as it did not yet have a “soul.” The infusion of sanctity from Shabbat gave the universe a

soul, which allows it to continually exist.

Essentially, the more we understand the neshama yetera as a reference to the purpose of

Shabbat, the more we can understand how Shabbat is a period of enhanced spirituality, even for

one's physical endeavors, let alone its heightened opportunity for spiritual growth.

Rav Hirsch explains that this term is ideal because nefesh denotes the individuality of the

personality, the personal being of the individual.

Additionally, as Rav Chanan Porat explains, nefesh is a reference not only to resting from physical

exertion but spiritual rest, which involves dreaming about achieving the purpose of existence.

In fact, the final stanza of the powerful Shabbat song Kah Ekhsof, composed by Rav

Aharon the Great of Karlin, discusses the inner sublimity that one experiences on Shabbat and

30
refers to all three areas of one's soul, as he calls Shabbat the pleasantness of neshamot, the delight

of ruchot and the Eden of the nefashot.

Resting on Shabbat and setting aside daily activities allows one to find oneself, to dream

about inner spiritual longings, and to recognize the deeper meaning and spiritual purpose of all of

physical existence while in possession of an expanded nefesh, ruach and neshama, as only

Shabbat can provide.

The Neshama Yetera of Shemitta

While this is true regarding the weekly Shabbat, there is also good reason to believe that

during the entire year of Shabbat ha-aretz, the Jew is privileged to be blessed with an expanded

soul.

In fact, the word nefesh is used as a verb only twice in the Torah. Even before the

aforementioned verse, in Parashat Mishpatim, after mentioning shemitta, the Torah describes

Shabbat and uses a similar verb.

Alshikh understands this verse is a reference to the neshama yetera not only of Shabbat,

but of shemitta as well:

31
 This idea is mentioned elsewhere by Alshikh as well, yet he is not the only one speaks of

the neshama yetera of the shemitta year, as similar ideas are mentioned by Rav Tzaddok and the

Sefat Emet, among others.

In at least three places (Vayikra, pp. 200, 203; Bereishit, p. 148), the Sefat Emet describes

vividly the neshama yetera that accompanies the individual through the entire shemitta year. He

explains that in general, the physical existence of the world has an inner spiritual power which

goes beyond the limitations of the physical realm. Both the Land of Israel and Shabbat are referred

to as nachala, which generally refers to an area with very definitive boundaries. Israel is

the nachala without real limitation in the dimension of space, while Shabbat is its counterpart in

the dimension of time. For man to be able to appreciate this inner quality he needs the proper

tool, neshama yetera. This enables residents of the land of Israel to be given a special neshama and

a unique ruach (Yeshayahu 42:5) allowing the inhabitants to arise above the materialism of

society, and to recognize within themselves the power to merge the physical and the spiritual and

sanctify one's existence even beyond the period of Shabbat.

32
 It is this unique opportunity that the neshama yetera of shemitta provides, through an

entire year of Shabbat in the Land.

The Lasting Effect

The fact that shemitta provides a neshama yetera for the Jew for an entire year allows its

impact to be life-altering rather than temporary. Rav Kook (Introduction, Shabbat Ha-aretz) also

refers to the question of how a septennial escape from routine will be sufficient to impact society

every year:

Rav Kook continues by describing this ideal as a central aspect of yovel, which is not only

supposed to impact one generation, but the entire metaphysical stature of the nation as a whole,

vertically as well as horizontally.

The End, Beginning or Middle?

This outlook allows us to see Shabbat and shemitta as both launching point and destination.

HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein notes that the sabbatical element of shemitta can be expressed on two

different planes, just as Shabbat can be seen as the beginning of the week or as its culmination.

33
 HaRav Lichtenstein continues by explaining how the parallelism between Shabbat

and shemitta carries through all these aspects.

HaRav Lichtenstein goes on to explain that this is the meaning of Rav Kook's statement

that the same effect which Shabbat has on the individual, shemitta has on the nation as a whole,

allowing "its Divine light to reveal itself in its full splendor, so that the mundane life of society

34
with its burdens and worries not extinguish it … so that the purity of its soul in its entirety be able

to reveal itself within it." Based on this, HaRav Lichtenstein concludes:

It is specifically this Shabbat element of shemitta that gives it its quality as a year which

can transform society and refocus energies on what the ultimate goal really is. With that in mind,

there is good reason to believe that many of the ways in which we fall short of the vision which

Rav Kook had for the nation upon its return to the land may be rooted in our lack of connection to

the observance of the Shabbat elements of shemitta.

Our Super Shabbat Soul

35
 The additional soul we receive on Shabbat is an expression of a higher love for G-d.15
I

We are taught in the Talmud that on Shabbat Eve G-d gives a person an "Additional Soul," and at
the conclusion of Shabbat it is taken from him. (Beitza, page 16; Taanit, page 27)

But what exactly is this Additional Soul? Does a person feel additional physical energy? Can he
run faster and jump higher? Can he suddenly accomplish physical feats that would have been
impossible during the week?

The Additional Soul…is a revelation from the deepest part of a person's essence….
Actually, the Additional Soul is not something that comes from outside of a person but is a
revelation from the deepest part of a person's essence.

Unity Soul

We are taught in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba) that the soul is called by five
names: Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama, Chaya, and Yechida. These names refer to five different levels
and types of revelation within the soul of a person, with the highest level being the Yechida. This
level of the soul is totally united with G-d. It is not a unity of two separate objects that were later
united together. Rather, it is a unity that stems from the fact that the soul always was, and always
will be, completely united with G-d.

With the coming of Shabbat, this deepest level of a person's soul, the Yechida, is revealed within
the person. This is the Additional Soul we are given on Shabbat. It is not felt as an increase in
physical life, but rather, an increase in the spiritual life force of a person.

Two Types of Love

But what is the actual experience of the Additional Soul?

There are two types of love for G-d….

15
From the teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi

36
We are taught that there are two types of love for G-d. One type of love is born out of contemplation
of the greatness and oneness of G-d. This is a love that stems from our thoughts and, as a result, is
limited in nature. For example, the more a person understands the goodness of something, the more
his love for that thing increases. The love is therefore in direct relation to the quality of his intellect.

The other type of love is a love that is not born out of contemplation and intellect. Rather, it is a
love for G-d that transcends intellect. It is not based on logic but is an expression stemming from
a deep will and desire for G-d that is beyond reason. Just as a person's will to live is not based on
reason but is rooted in his inner depths, so too this unbounded love for G-d is an expression of the
deepest part of a person, the essence of his soul. This deep and unbounded love for G-d is the
experience of our Additional Soul on Shabbat.

During the Week

Arousing the type of love born from intellectual contemplation is our work during the week.
The Torah tells us, "Six days shall you work…," which, as is explained in Chassidut, is referring
to our work of serving G-d. And, as the Zohar explains, there is no labor like the labor of love.

The Additional Soul is unable to be revealed … unless a person is a fitting receptacle for this
revelation….
However, to create a love born out of intellect requires one to exert considerable effort in binding
his or her thoughts to the oneness and greatness of G-d. Thus, for six days we labor, through deep
contemplation, in arousing our love for G-d.

Yet, even though the Additional Soul is given as a gift from G-d, nevertheless, the Additional Soul
is unable to be revealed within a person as an arousal of unbounded love for G-d unless a person
is a fitting receptacle for this revelation. Our "work" of arousing an intellectually generated love
for G-d during the six days of the week creates the vessel, the environment, which enables the
Additional Soul to reveal itself within us on Shabbat.

Shabbat During the Week

37
Prayer is like a ladder….
In addition, the revelation of the Additional Soul on Shabbat will also affect the week to come.
When we pray on Shabbat with a deep longing and desire for G-d, truly feeling the revelation of
our Additional Soul, we are given the power to draw a glow of the Additional Soul into the coming
week.

This revelation is felt in our weekday prayers. Through heartfelt and sincere prayer, we are able to
experience this glow of the Additional Soul even during the week. Prayer is like a ladder,
connecting the holiness of Shabbat with the six days of the week.

As a result, not only will the holiness of Shabbat be felt in our weekday prayers, but all our
weekday actions will also be infused with the holiness of Shabbat.16

The basic explanation is as follows: Midrash Rabba writes that the soul is called by five names:
Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama, Chaya, and Yechida. These names refer to five different levels and types
of revelation within the soul of a person, with the highest level being the Yechida. This level of the
soul is totally united with G-d.

With the coming of Shabbos, this deepest level of a person's soul, the Yechida, is revealed within
the person. This is the Additional Soul we are given on Shabbos.

It is not felt as an increase in physical life, but rather, an increase in the spiritual life force of a
person: There are two types of love for G-d; one type of love is born out of contemplation of the
greatness and oneness of G-d. The second is a love that is not born out of contemplation and
intellect. Rather, it is a love for G-d that transcends intellect. This deep and unbounded love for
G-d is the experience of our Additional Soul on Shabbos.

16
Adapted by Aaron Schmidt from Torah Ohr, parashat Vayakhel, pg. 87 with commentary Chassidut Mevu'eret.

38
 The Additional Shabbat Soul
On Shabbat, the mysteries of the Torah are opened

Simcha H. Benyosef writes:17

It is known that on Shabbat one receives an "additional soul". To understand the concept of the
additional Shabbat soul, we must first discuss the three dimensions of the soul. These are
the Neshama (from the Hebrew word "neshama", meaning "breath"), the Ruach (literally, "wind"),
and the Nefesh (from the Hebrew word "nafash", meaning "rested").Because of its lofty origin,
the Neshama is not completely connected to the body…

The Neshama rests upon the brain; the Ruach dwells in the heart; the Nefesh is connected to the
liver. The Nefesh and the Ruach, which are responsible for human emotions, are directly connected
with the body. However, because of its lofty origin, the Neshama is not completely connected to
the body; body and Neshama are two separate entities dwelling together.

At the moment of death, the Neshama leaves the body. The Nefesh remains, and
the Ruach fluctuates back and forth, returning annually on the anniversary of the death to dwell in
the body for that day.

17
From the teachings of Rafael Moshe Luria; https://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/10377/jewish/Luria-Rafael-
Moshe.htm

39
The Nefesh is bound to the body's material needs and tendencies. It is an animating force, the
motivation behind our basic life forces such as eating and drinking. The Neshama deals
exclusively with matters of the spirit. It is an intellectual soul longing to serve the Creator; its goal
is to teach man how to make his life a constant fulfillment of the will of G-d.

The Ruach is in constant movement between the Nefesh and the Neshama. On weekdays,
the Ruach attaches itself to the Nefesh; on Shabbat, in which the Ruach is not involved in any
mundane activity, it separates from the Nefesh and attaches itself to the Neshama. In addition, for
the duration of Shabbat, each Jew receives a "Neshama yetera", an "additional soul". When
Shabbat departs, the Ruach returns to the Nefesh, and the additional soul returns to Heaven.

One is able to soar to new heights, boosted by an increased understanding of G-d's Torah…
There are two aspects of Shabbat observance: outwardly, it is a day of rest, but inwardly, it is a
time of soul-union with our Maker; in the same way the additional soul has an inner and outer
purpose. This outer purpose is, as Rashi explains, an expanded heart, or in other words a
sharpening of our sense perceptions comparable to the effect of mind-altering drugs which
heighten the ability to see colors, taste food, appreciate sound, and the like. This outer purpose
helps us fulfill the commandment of delighting in Shabbat.

The inner purpose of the additional soul is to help us focus our entire mind on the Almighty. As a
result, our ability to feel His Presence is intensified, particularly at the moment of prayers. This
special focusing power of the mind also results in a higher level of understanding, which greatly
enhances the pleasure of learning Torah on Shabbat.

Shabbat provides a unique opportunity to study the Torah for the sake of giving pleasure to the
Beloved, without thinking of the reward we will gain. At the time one is absorbed in his study,
his/her body ceases to call attention to its material needs. As a consequence, one is able to soar to
new heights, boosted by an increased understanding of G-d's Torah.

40
On Shabbat the gates of the light of the Torah are opened. The mysteries of the Torah that you
begin to grasp increase your faith in the Divine Wisdom and intensify the delight that floods you
at the time of prayer.

Whereas the Neshama that a person has during the week enables him to understand the outer
aspects of the Torah, the additional soul enables him to understand its mysteries. "Let Him kiss me
with the kisses of His mouth", says the first verse of the Song of Songs, which Rashi interprets as:

Let Him be intimate with me again and transmit to me the innermost Secrets of His Torah directly,
"mouth to mouth", as He did at Sinai, when He revealed Himself to us "face-to-face."

Thus, it is traditional to read the Song of Songs at the onset of Shabbat to remind us that on this
day our wish is fulfilled through the presence of the additional soul.

Hence, the outer purpose of the additional soul - the sharpening of the senses - is to feel the Shabbat
delight.18

18
From "Living the Kabbalah: A Guide to the Sabbath and Festivals in the Teachings of Rabbi Rafael Moshe Luria"

41
 Between a Gift and an Accomplishment

Rabbi Asher Brander writes:19

Where’s the Besamim (spices)?

(Disclaimer: I am not an expert on souls and can’t distinguish between basic souls and extra souls.
We’ll leave that to the resident experts.)

Our Rabbis teach that every Shabbos we are bestowed with a neshama yeseira (1) – an extra soul,
that serves as a necessary receptacle to receive the Shabbos spirituality. As Shabbos departs, so
does that extra soul. During Havdala, we mark its departure by taking out the besamim.

Why davka (specifically) besamim?

19
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/emor_between_a_gift_and_an_accomplishment/

42
Apparently the soul – scent connection is very deep. In probing the source that a bracha must be
made before smelling spices, the gemara (2) invokes the pasuk “kol haneshama tehalel kah” – the
whole soul shall praise you. That sense of smell somehow bypasses the body and allures the
soul (3). Therefore as compensation for the departing soul (or perhaps a distraction), we grant the
remaining basic soul some transcendent joy for its lost chavrusa.

Presumably, this soul also descends upon high as Yom Tov commences and and presumably, it
departs with Yom Tov’s conclusion.

Hence our opening question: Why is there no besamim present at the Havdalah service that marks
the conclusion of Yom Tov?

Some rishonim reject the first presumption. In the view of Tosafos (4), the extra soul is a Shabbos
thing. Thus, one need not snuff besamim as Yom Tov departs. A basic conundrum still remains: If
there is no neshama yeseira on Yom Tov, how do we explain the absence of besamim (from the
quasi havdala ceremony) when Shabbos leads into Yom Tov? After all, the neshama yeseira of
Shabbos is lost and noncometh on Yom Tov!? Sharply, Tosafos responds that Yom Tov
itself serves as a compensation for the loss of the extra soul.

Rashbam argues. He does accept our initial assumption. No besamim is necessary in the Shabbos-
Yom Tov scenario because there is an extra soul on Yom Tov! For him, our initial question
looms large. Why then is there no besamim as Yom Tov departs? On this issue Rashbam is
frustratingly silent. About 100 years later Ramban (5) came to the rescue and posits an enigmatic
and ultimately remarkable response.

“On Yom Tov we receive an extra soul – but it does not depart as Yom Tov leaves – therefore
we do not take the besamim”

Brilliant! Ramban rejects our second assumption. Yes there is a neshama yeseira on Yom Tov –
but it is ours for the keeping. As Yom Tov departs, there is no need for the besamim compensation.
We solve one problem, we create another: The perceptive reader (anybody still here?) is justifiably
mystified: Why does the neshama yeseira of Shabbos bid us a weekly adieu while the Yom

43
Tov neshama yeseira lingers on? On that issue, it is Ramban’s turn to be silent, and Shem
Mishmuel comes to the rescue – which brings us to our main point

Shabbos says Shem Mishmuel is a gift. It is an isarusa d’leila – an awakening from upon high.
From there it descends and so shall it return. Not so Yom Tov. Famously, we, klal yisrael sanctify
time (6). It is the collective Bnei Yisrael effort, through its Sanhedrin, that declares the new month
and its corollary, the Moadim (holidays). Yom Tov then is an isarusa d’lesata – an awakening
from below. While admittedly not the gift of Shabbos nor laden with the same degree of
transcendent joy (oneg), Yom Tov remains. It is our human efforts that create a tefisas yad adam –
a grasp that allows us to hold onto its sanctity forever. Yom Tov then, is an accomplishment. Emor,
our parsha highlights this unique sanctity of the moadim; within it resides the section of holidays
that possess kedusha known as mikraei kodesh, a sanctity called or created by Man.

Consider for a moment the kedusha of Har HaBayis and contrast it with Har Sinai. For forty days,
the latter abode was Heaven on Earth, the recipient of the greatest Divine revelation bar none,
known to Man. Remarkably, it retains no residual sanctity; its very location remains utterly
unclear. The former site, aka the makom hamikdash, (the place of the beis hamikdash) retains its
sanctity long after its edifice has been destroyed (and nebach been replaced with antithetical
spiritual symbols). Wherein resides the difference. Shem Mishmuel’s distinction looms large: the
Sinai sanctity was foisted from upon high. Har HaBayis was the product of human initiated sanctity
– and thus it still retains (7).

Western Man generally shies away from considering his transient existence. I like to call it the
death of death. We have created a doublespeak of the highest order (we don’t become old, only
golden, there are no cemeteries only memorial parks and caskets have become containers). In stark
contrast, Chazal, most assuredly not men of morbidity, prodded us to consider our mortality.

Why? Because in doing so, we are forced into become self-aware, a painstaking process most
critical in Avodas Hashem (Divine Service). We then unveil the gifts (and challenges) that Hashem
has bestowed upon us. If we neglect them or worse, deny them, then we proceed at our own risk.

44
These gifts however are on loan. They are Divine presents, which as sure as Sinai, will come and
go. Hashem nasan, Hashem lakach. What we do with those gifts, our spiritual accomplishments,
are the ultimate measure of our eternal success.

FOOTNOTE:
1. Beitzah 16

2. Berachos 43

3. It is fascinating that the prophet Yeshayahu (11:3) talks about sniffing out the Mashiach – v’hericho

b’yiras Hashem. See Ohr Gedalyahu for an expansion on the theme of the uniqueness of the sense of smell.

4. Pesachim 102b

5. Emunah U’bitachon

6. Of course, this is at the root of the distinction in nusach between the Shabbos Kiddush and Yom Tv Kiddush (cf.

Pesachim 117b)

7. On a deeper level one may point to the ultimate mesirus nefesh of Avraham in Akeidas Yitzchak that created the

sanctity for generations.

45
 The Extra Soul of Shabbat

Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen writes:20

In this week’s Torah Portion, Ki Tisa (Exodus 30:11-34:35)God again instructs the Jewish people
in the Mitzvot of Shabbat, telling us that it is a sign between Him and the Jewish people that God
created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. In expressing this, the Torah uses the
language of ‘shavat v’yenifash’. Shavat means resting, but the meaning of vaynifash is not
immediately clear. It is normally translated as refreshed, but the Gemara sees an allusion to a very
important concept.

The Gemara1 states that the word ‘vayinafash’ is a construct of two words – Oi and nefesh, and it
alludes to the fact that a person receives an ‘extra soul’ (Neshama yeteira) on Shabbat which leaves
at the end of Shabbat. Upon its leaving, the person feels a loss, which is expressed in the words,
‘oi avdah nefesh’ – woe, the soul has been lost. Thus, the Torah is alluding to the fact that a person
receives an extra soul on Shabbat, which leaves at the end of Shabbat, causing a feeling of sadness.
This is the reason that the Sages decreed that we smell spices as part of the ceremony of Havdala
where we acknowledge the end of the holy day of Shabbat – smelling the spices helps alleviate the
melancholy that a person experiences upon the loss of the extra soul 2.
There are a number of explanations as to what exactly this extra soul refers to, and how it effects
a person on Shabbat. Rashi3 writes that it refers to an enhanced capacity to have serenity and joy,
and it gives a person an ability to eat more food. The Shita Mekubetset4 explains that the extra soul
gives a person Divine flow that enables him to learn Torah and understand God’s actions on a
higher level. The Ben Yehoyada cites the Arizal who states that the extra soul is the crown of light
that each Jew received at the Giving of the Torah, and which was taken away after the sin of the
Golden Calf. Every Shabbat, God returns this crown to each Jew.

The question arises as to whether a Jew also receives the extra soul on Yom Tov. The
Gemara5 discusses the order for Havdala and Kiddush on a Yom Tov that begins at the end of
Shabbos. Everyone agrees that we do not say the blessing on spices. The Rashbam6 explains that
this is because we receive an extra soul on Yom Tov, as well as on Shabbat. Accordingly, there is
no need to smell spices, since their purpose is to alleviate a person’s distress at the end of Shabbat
when he loses the extra soul, and when Yom Tov falls on the end of Shabbos the extra soul remains.

Totefot7 ask a very strong question on the Rashbam’s opinion. He notes the law that when we say
Havdala after a regular Yom Tov, the Sages did not decree that we say a blessing on spices. They
conclude that, evidently, the reason for this is that a person does not receive an extra soul on Yom
Tov, and therefore he does not need to smell spices at the end of Yom Tov. Why then, does he not
smell spices at the end of Shabbat that falls on Yom Tov, if he does indeed lose the extra soul?
Totefot explain that the meal that we eat on the night of Yom Tov alleviates our distress in place

20
https://www.aish.com/tp/i/gl/The-Extra-Soul-of-Shabbat.html

46
of the spices, hence the Sages did not include spices as part of the Havdala when Yom Tov falls
on then end of Shabbat8.

However, a number of opinions agree with the Rashbam9, that we do indeed receive an extra soul
on Yom Tov. How then do they answer the question as to why we do not smell spices on the end
of Yom Tov? The Ramban explains that we do receive an extra soul on Yom Tov, but it does not
leave us at the end of Yom Tov, hence we do not feel the same distress as we do on the end of
Shabbos, and there is no need to smell spices. Yet at the same time, on the end of Shabbat that
falls on a Yom Tov, there is no need for spices because we have the extra soul of Yom Tov. The
question arises as to why the extra soul does leave us after Shabbos, but remains with us after Yom
Tov?

In order to answer this, it is first necessary to analyze a fundamental difference between Shabbat
and Yom Tov. The holy writings discuss the concepts of “Arousal from Above” and “Arousal
from Below”: Arousal from Above refers to time periods where the inspiration is sent from
Heaven, as a gift. Arousal from Below refers to time periods where the inspiration begins from
this world, which requires human action in order to activate it. Shabbat is characterized by Arousal
from Above, whereby its holiness arrives regardless of human input. This is part of what the Sages
mean by the expression that, “The Almighty said, ‘I have a wonderful present in my treasure house
– and it is named Shabbat”. When somebody gives a gift, the recipient does not necessarily have
to deserve it – Shabbat is a gift.

In contrast, with regard to Yom Tov, we need to prepare ourselves to achieve the effect that the
day is intended to have upon us. This is the meaning of Arousal from Below. This idea is borne
out by the fact that man defines when each Yom Tov begins, based on how he organizes the
calendar, whereas the timing of Shabbat is not defined by man. Yom Tov is not a gift, like Shabbat,
rather it is something that must be earnt.

Based on this understanding, the Kedushat Levi10 and Sfat Emes11 explain why, according to the
Ramban, the extra soul does not leave after Yom Tov. The reason is that since it is earnt by the
person’s preparations for Yom Tov, he merits keeping it forever. Whereas, the extra soul of
Shabbat is essentially a gift, hence the person has not earnt the right to keep it forever.

We have seen that the extra soul of Shabbat comes regardless of human input. Yet, one Scholar
points out that if a person does not feel a special holiness on Shabbat, it means that he has not
tapped into his extra soul. The reason for this may be that he has not done enough preparation to
make Shabbat a holy experience, and that on Shabbat itself, he does not treat it with the sanctity
that it deserves. If someone looks at Shabbat as merely an opportunity to sleep more, eat more,
and catch up on the news, then it is likely that he will not feel its holiness. But if he treats it with
its due reverence, and focuses on learning more, talking Torah at the meals, and spending time
with his family, then he will surely tap into its holiness to a far higher degree. This applies all the
more so to the Yamim Tovim, where a person only merits the extra soul by earning it through
preparation. This seems to refer, in addition to preparing for the Yom Tov on a physical level, to
learning the ideas and laws of the Yom Tov so that he can properly appreciate it.

May we merit to feel the holiness of every Shabbat and Yom Tov.

47
 1. Beitsah, 16a.
2. Tosefos, Beitsah, 33b, Dh: Ki havinan.
3. Beitsah, 16a, Dh: Neshama yeseira.
4. Ibid, Dh: Nassan.
5. Pesachim, 102b.
6. Ibid. Dh: UShmue.l
7. Ibid. Dh: Rav amar.
8. The Rashba, Shut, Chelek 3, Simun 290; Rosh, Pesachim, Simun 9 and Shibbolei Leket, Seder Pesach, SImun 218, hold
the same way.
9. Ramban, HaEmunah Vehabitachon, Chapter 21; Derech Aniyah, Pesachim, 102b, Dh: Rav; Kedushas Levi, Drush
LePesach.
10. Drush L’Pesach.
11. Cited by the Dvar Shmuel al Tosefos, Pesachim, 102b.

Reb Dovid Meisels writes:21

21
https://www.shabes.net/shabat-files/alonim/shabbos-secrets.pdf Translated by Rabbi Awaharn Yaakov Finkel

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
 Three Laughs

Doug Lippman writes:22

A Jewish (Hasidic-Poland): When the Baal Shem Tov laughs three times during
the Sabbath meal, his disciples ask him to explain. He was inspired by an elderly
bookbinder who sang and danced on the Sabbath in celebration of his many years
of marriage. The man is recognized for celebrating his true love for his wife, even
if on the Sabbath.

Tell me a story...23

Once, the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov decided to prepare him a special Sabbath. They worked
for days to make sure that everything would be just as it should be, so that the spirit of the Sabbath
would descend as it never had before.
At last, a few minutes before sundown on Friday night, they were all seated around a long table
with the Baal Shem Tov at the place of honor at the head. The disciple who had been chosen for
the special honor of lighting the Sabbath candles stood up and began to light the candles and say
the blessing.
"Ha! Ha-ha!" Suddenly, the Baal Shem Tov gave a loud laugh.
The disciple lighting the candles looked around to see what was wrong—if there was something
amiss with his clothing, perhaps—but everything was as it should be.
Later, they began the Sabbath meal. They gave the Baal Shem Tov the first bowl of the soup that
they had labored so long over.
He tasted it.
"Heh, heh, heh, heh!" He laughed and laughed.
The disciples were appalled. They rushed to taste the soup, but there was nothing in it that
tasted...humorous.
Still later, they were singing the Sabbath songs.
Oh, what strength a righteous woman has! There is no treasure rarer than this! Happy is the heart
that relies on her, for such a heart can lack for nothing.... Yai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai....

22
https://www.learningtogive.org/resources/three-laughs
23
. www.hasidicstories.com

57
As they sang, the Baal Shem Tov began to laugh and laugh, as though he could not contain himself.
It was the custom of the disciples that, on Saturday night, after the spirit of the Sabbath had
departed, they would choose one question between them, and present it to the Baal Shem Tov.
This Saturday, there was no debate as to what question they would ask. "Holy master, why did you
laugh during the Sabbath--three times?"
In answer, the Baal Shem Tov said, "Come with me."
All the disciples crowded into the Baal Shem Tov's carriage. He drew the curtains over the
windows, and they began to travel swiftly.
Several hours later, when he opened the curtains, they were in a distant village. None of them had
ever been there before.
The Baal Shem Tov went to the leaders of the village. "Bring everyone to the village square. Now."
When the Baal Shem Tov stood looking out over that crowd of faces, he said, "There is still one
family missing."
After a few minutes, the people realized, "It must be the old bookbinder and his wife. They live on
the edge of town; they must not have gotten the word."
When this old man and this old woman entered the village square, and the old man saw who it was
who was calling for him, he began to wring his hands. "Oh, Holy Master. I know I have committed
a great sin. I only ask forgiveness."
"Bookbinder, tell my disciples and these people gathered here how you spent your Sabbath."
Fearfully, the old man glanced at the illustrious students of the Baal Shem Tov and began to speak.
"I am an old bookbinder. In my youth, I could earn enough that we had what we needed during the
week, and something special to greet the Sabbath. But as I have grown older, there has been less
and less.
"Finally, this Sabbath—for the first time—we had no Sabbath candles—and only a few crusts of
bread for a Sabbath meal.
"My wife was determined that we would observe the Sabbath as well as we were able. And so, just
before sundown, she went through the motions of lighting candles that were not there.
"As she did, I saw...a flash of light. And I understood for the first time that the light that I had
thought came only from the candles was also coming from her. I shouted out, 'I love you'—in the
middle of the holy blessing!
"I got control of myself and went back to observing the Sabbath with due respect.
"But then later, we were beginning our humble meal. We had only warmed water for soup. But I
tasted it. I felt...nourished.
"At that moment, I realized that the nourishment—which all these years I had thought came only
from the soup—actually came also from her, from our being together through so many Sabbaths.

58
"And before I realized what I was doing, I jumped up. I kissed her!
"Shocked at my own behavior, I sat back down. I stayed in my seat properly until later when we
sang the Sabbath songs.
Oh, what strength a righteous woman has!

There is no treasure rarer than this!

"Singing these words, I realized what a great strength she was in my life.
Happy is the heart that relies on her, for such a heart can lack for nothing....
"Suddenly, I knew that, in spite of our great poverty, while I had her in my life, I lacked for nothing.
"And then, before I knew what I was doing, I jumped up. I grabbed her by the arms. We began to
sing and dance together.
Yai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai; Yai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai, dai....
"At last, I got control of myself and sat back down.
"Holy master, I know I have defiled the Sabbath. Please, tell me: what must I do to be forgiven?"
The Baal Shem Tov looked at his disciples. "When this man and this woman spent their Sabbath
in such deep and holy love, I was there with them, and I shared in their joy.
"And when he spoke his love for that woman, not only I but the angels in heaven heard—and they
smiled. And when he got up and kissed that woman, acting on that deep love—the angels in heaven
saw them, and they laughed.
"And when the two of them joined their hands and sang and danced their joy, the angels themselves
began to sing and to dance. And the Eternal Heart itself heard them, and it was warmed.
"'On a Sabbath of such perfect joy, who wouldn't laugh?"

59