Daf Ditty Beitzah 36: Musical Production

1
2
MISHNA: Any act for which one is liable due to a rabbinic decree made to enhance the
character of Shabbat as a day of rest [shevut]; or if it is notable because it is optional, i.e., it
involves an aspect of a mitzva but is not a complete mitzva; or if it is notable because it is a full-
fledged mitzva, if it is prohibited on Shabbat, one is liable for it on a Festival as well.

3
And these are the acts prohibited by the Sages as shevut: One may not climb a tree on Shabbat,
nor ride on an animal, nor swim in the water, nor clap his hands together, nor clap his hand
on the thigh, nor dance.

And the following are acts that are prohibited on Shabbat and are notable because they are
optional, i.e., which involve an aspect of a mitzva but are not complete mitzvot: One may not
judge, nor betroth a woman, nor perform ḥalitza, which is done in lieu of levirate marriage, nor
perform levirate marriage.

4
And the following are prohibited on Shabbat despite the fact that they are notable because of the
full-fledged mitzva involved in them: One may not consecrate, nor take a valuation vow (see
Leviticus 27), nor consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, nor separate teruma
and tithes from produce.

5
6
The Sages spoke of all these acts being prohibited even with regard to a Festival; all the more
so are they prohibited on Shabbat. The general principle is: There is no difference between a
Festival and Shabbat, except for work involving preparation of food alone, which is permitted
on a Festival but prohibited on Shabbat.

7
Summary

Introduction1

This long mishnah deals with three categories of acts that are prohibited by the rabbis on Shabbat
and on Yom Tov. They are all considered to be prohibited “derabbanan”, by the rabbis and not by
the Torah. The three categories are: Shevut mandated rest on Shabbat. These are activities that are

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Beitzah.36b.8?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Beitzah.5.2&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20
Mishnah&lang3=en

8
prohibited because they are generally not in the spirit of the day or because by doing one of them
one might come to transgress a biblical prohibition. Reshut optional activities. These have some
aspect of mitzvah in them but can be done on other days. Therefore one doesn’t do them on Yom
Tov or Shabbat. Mitzvah these are commandments that can be performed on other days and
therefore shouldn’t be done on Shabbat. The main point of the mishnah is that the only actions
which are allowed on Yom Tov but prohibited on Shabbat those done while preparing food. All of
the other Shabbat prohibitions still hold true.

Every [act] for which one is liable on Shabbat because of mandated rest [shevut], [or] because
it is only optional [reshut], [or] even though it is a religious act [mitzvah], he is also liable on
Yom Tov.

For the following acts he is liable because of shevut: One may not climb a tree, And one may
not ride on an animal. And one may not swim in water. And one may not clap hands, nor
slap [thighs], nor dance.

Climbing a tree is forbidden lest one breaks a branch, which is forbidden to do on Shabbat. Riding
an animal is considered prohibited lest one while riding break a branch to use as a switch in guiding
an animal. It seems that a deeper reason for why the rabbis prohibited this was that they did not
believe that riding an animal was in the spirit of Shabbat. Swimming was prohibited lest while
swimming one makes a raft on which to float. Finally, certain types of clapping, slapping of thighs
and dancing were prohibited on Shabbat lest one begin to make music and then come to make a
musical instrument. We should note that some of these activities are no longer generally prohibited
because the likelihood that by doing one of them one will come to transgress a more serious
commandment is minimal. In my mind the most important thing to remember is that while one
follows the minutiae of Shabbat, one should also be mindful of the spirit of Shabbat. Even things
that are permitted should not always be done.

For the following acts he is liable because they are only optional: One may not judge; And
one may not betroth a wife, nor perform halizah, nor perform yibbum [consumate a levirate
marriage].

This section contains activities that have some aspect of “commandment” to them but can be done
on other days. Judging, betrothing and other legal aspects of arranging various types of marriages
can be done any day of the week, therefore one should not do them on Shabbat. In my opinion,
this is again because these activities are not in the “spirit of Shabbat.” They might detract from the
special sanctity of Shabbat, a day set aside. A more technical reason why these things are
prohibited is that by doing one of them one might come to write.

And for the following acts one is liable even though it is a religious act [mitzvah]: One may
not dedicate [anything to the Temple], nor vow a personal valuation, nor make a vow of
herem, nor set aside terumah or tithes.

These acts are actually mitzvot, but still one may not perform them on Shabbat or Yom Tov
because they can all be done with as much ease on other days. The Rambam explains that donating

9
something to the Temple is similar to engaging in business and hence one does not do so on
Shabbat. One does not separate tithes or terumah on Yom Tov or Shabbat because by doing so one
“fixes” something to make it usable. Also, this could have just as easily been done the day before.

All these things they [the rabbis said that they are forbidden] on Yom Tov, how much more
so [are they forbidden] on Shabbat. There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbat
except for the preparation of food alone.

In conclusion the mishnah notes that when discussing the laws of Yom Tov the rabbis prohibited
these activities, but they are nevertheless even more prohibited on Shabbat. The mishnah reminds
us that the only type of activity which is permitted on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat is something
done while preparing food.

Our daf uses points from our last Mishna to flush out the differences in halachot on Festivals and
on Shabbat.2 Those points include clearing a room of stored produce for visitors, lowering drying
fruits from the roof through a skylight, covering produce, wine, and oil with cloths, placing a vessel
beneath a leak. They also look at beekeepers who cover beehives over the rainy months. The bees
are considered to be animals that are not 'meant' to be trapped.

The rabbis continually consider how people will interpret their halachot. It is assumed that people
take the halachot of Shabbat seriously. But if the rabbis are lenient on Festivals, will Jews take
those holidays with any seriousness at all? Even though the Festivals are supposed to be less
associated with obligation and more filled with joy, the rabbis do not trust that the community will
be as stringent as necessary without their halachot.

Also of note is the reminder that monetary loss is thought to be less important that fulfilling
mitzvot. Especially if that monetary loss is 'minor'.

We are told a story about Abaye and his uncle, Rabba. Abaye's millhouse's roof was leaking on
Shabbat and he asked Rabba for direction. Rabba instructed Abaye to move his bed into the
millhouse and to consider the vessel catching the rainwater as the same vessel containing
excrement or urine, which can be removed on Shabbat if it is repulsive. Abaye thought about this,
wondering if he should move something on Shabbat knowing that the move is not required. While
he was thinking, the roof fell in. Abaye chastised himself for not following Rabba's advice
immediately.

This would not have stopped the roof from caving in, however.

We learn that excrement or mice - things that are repulsive - can be removed directly (ie. by hand)
if required.

2
https://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/05

10
Our next Mishna provides us with a list of activities that are prohibited by the Sages on Shabbat
in the name of shevat, rest. It also tells us which activities are 'optional'. Forbidden activities
include climbing trees, riding animals, swimming, clapping, and dancing. Optional activities
include judging, betrothing, performing chalitza, or performing a levirite marriage. Although they
are mitzvot, we are told not to consecrate, vow, consecrate objects to the priests, or separate
teruma/tithes. All of these acts are forbidden on Festivals and Shabbat; we are told that the only
leniencies on Festivals regard food preparation.

Notes teach us that the rabbis expanded these suggestion, including marriage of any kind and
divorce.

Why?
climbing a tree - we could break a branch which is like reaping..
riding an animal - we could go beyond the eiruv and/or we could break a branch while riding
[see above]..
swimming - we could create a barrel as a floatation device..
clapping - we could construct a musical instrument..

Judging is discouraged though it is a full-fledged mitzvah. This is because there could be

another qualified judge present, lessening the obligation to judge.

We will learn more about the other optional activities in tomorrow's daf.

WHICH LAWS ARE MORE STRINGENT -- THOSE OF

SHABBOS OR YOM TOV?

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara compares the laws of moving bundles of produce in a storehouse on Shabbos (to make
room for students or guests) to the laws of lowering bundles of fruit from a roof on Yom Tov (to
prevent them from spoiling in the rain).

The Gemara addresses four aspects of these two sets of laws:

1. May more than four or five basketfuls of fruit be moved in each case?
2. May the entire area be cleared, leaving none of the produce behind?
3. May the produce be moved to a different house or roof?

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-036.htm

11
4. May the bundles be lifted, or must they be pushed or dragged without being lifted?

The Halachah on Shabbos with regard to the first two questions is clear -- both acts are prohibited
when one moves bundles of produce in order to make room for students or guests. The Gemara
asks whether the law is more lenient with regard to lowering fruit from a roof on Yom Tov.

Similarly, the Halachah on Yom Tov with regard to the last two questions is clear -- both acts are
prohibited when one lowers bundles of produce from his roof in order to prevent them from
spoiling in the rain. The Gemara asks whether the law is more lenient with regard to moving
produce in a storehouse on Shabbos.

The Gemara proposes two reasons for why the law should be more stringent on Shabbos than on
Yom Tov (first, Shabbos in general is more stringent; second, no monetary loss is involved), and
two reasons for why the law should be more stringent on Yom Tov than on Shabbos (first, in order
to prevent Yom Tov from being treated lightly ("Zilzul Yom Tov"); second, on Yom Tov there is
no Bitul Beis ha'Midrash involved).

In each of its four questions, however, the Gemara proposes a different combination of reasons for
why the laws of Shabbos should be more stringent than the laws of Yom Tov (or vice versa). Why
does the Gemara vary its argument in each case? (See Chart here, which lists the various reasons
of the Gemara for differentiating between Shabbos and Yom Tov in each case.)

(a) The PNEI YEHOSHUA suggests that each question of the Gemara was asked at a different
time by a different Amora. Each Amora mentioned reasons that he viewed to be the most essential.

(b) According to the Girsa of the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM here (which is endorsed by the SHITAH
MEKUBETZES as explained below), the Gemara is meticulous about which arguments it
presents at which stage (see Chart). The following paragraphs summarize each question of the
Gemara and the arguments which the Gemara presents in each case.

According to our text of the Gemara, in the first question the Gemara omits only one of the reasons
to differentiate between Shabbos and Yom Tov -- the reason that Shabbos in general is more
stringent. The Girsa of the Dikdukei Sofrim includes that reason but omits another one -- there is
no monetary loss involved. The RITVA (cited by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES) proves that this
Girsa is correct. He says that the Gemara cannot mention monetary loss as a factor because the
concern for a monetary loss cannot permit more fruit to be moved on Yom Tov than the amount
which may be moved on Shabbos because of Bitul Beis ha'Midrash. This is evident from the fact
that the Mishnah explicitly says that the fruit may be moved only on Yom Tov but not on Shabbos,
and yet moving fruit because of Bitul Beis ha'Midrash is permitted even on Shabbos!
(The RE'AH and RABEINU DAVID suggest a somewhat forced answer to defend the Girsa of
our text of the Gemara.) This explains why the Gemara omits the argument of monetary loss when
it discusses whether more than four or five boxes may be moved on Yom Tov.

This also explains why the Gemara omits the argument of monetary loss from the discussion of
the second question as well. An act that is not permitted on Shabbos because of Bitul Beis
ha'Midrash cannot be permitted on Shabbos due to the risk of monetary loss. (The Girsa of the

12
Dikdukei Sofrim does include the reason of monetary loss in the discussion of the second question,
as does the Girsa of the RE'AH and RABEINU DAVID (but they explain the reasoning in a way
that is similar to the way they explain the same reasoning in the Gemara's first question, as alluded
to above). However, it is clear from both the Ritva and the Shitah Mekubetzes in the name of "Mori
Ner'u" that their Girsa does not include this reasoning in the second question.)

In the last two questions, however, the Halachah on Yom Tov is known; one may neither lift the
produce nor move the produce from one roof to another. The Gemara's only question is whether
one may lift or move the produce on Shabbos. The Gemara legitimately suggests that if these acts
are prohibited on Yom Tov even though a risk of monetary loss is involved, then they should be
prohibited on Shabbos as well. (Even though Bitul Beis ha'Midrash permits more than the risk of
monetary loss permits, the Gemara assumes at this point that it is not sufficient reason to permit
lifting the produce or moving the produce from roof to roof.)

In the second question (may the entire area be cleared), the Gemara omits the argument of
monetary loss (as discussed above), and it also omits the argument of Zilzul Yom Tov.
The SHITAH MEKUBETZES explains (in the name of "Mori Ner'u") that the reason for this
omission is that this question does not involve merely an Isur d'Rabanan of Tircha (excessive
exertion) on Shabbos, but rather a Gezeirah d'Rabanan lest one fill-in furrows in the ground. Since
there is a risk that one will transgress an Isur Kares by filling-in furrows on Shabbos, there is no
doubt that Shabbos is more stringent than Yom Tov in this matter.

Moreover, it seems that there actually is no risk of Zilzul Yom Tov in the case of clearing the entire
area because Zilzul Yom Tov is applicable only to an act that might be viewed as an unnecessary
Tircha. Emptying an area of only four or five bundles of fruit is no more of a Tircha than moving
the same number of bundles when others remain there. The only reason to prohibit it is the
Gezeirah that one might do a Melachah (fill furrows). Zilzul Yom Tov is not a reason to prohibit
it.

In the Gemara's third question, although our text of the Gemara mentions other arguments, the
Dikdukei Sofrim's Girsa mentions only the arguments of loss of fruit and Bitul Beis ha'Midrash
(see #4 below). This is also the Girsa of the RE'AH and the SHITAH MEKUBETZES (who also
gives explanations for the omissions; see there).

In its fourth question, the Gemara considers only the arguments of loss of fruit and Bitul Beis
ha'Midrash, as it does in the third question.

It appears that in the cases of the last two questions, only a minimal Tircha is involved (lifting the
fruit instead of pushing it; pushing it to another house instead of into the same house). Therefore,
there is no reason to prohibit the act due to the severity of Shabbos or due to the Zilzul of Yom
Tov. The severity of Shabbos or Yom Tov is relevant only in the first question, with regard to
moving an unlimited number of bundles of fruit, and in the second question, in which emptying
the entire area might lead to a violation of the laws of Shabbos (filling-in a furrow, as discussed
above in #2). Therefore, in the last two questions the only consideration is whether or not this
minor Tircha is really necessary: does the resultant benefit justify such an act? If this is the

13
question, then the Gemara appropriately discusses permitting it because of Bitul Beis ha'Midrash
or to prevent the loss of fruit.

IS MARRIAGE A MITZVAH?

Mishnah mentions the act of Kiddushin in its list of voluntary acts ("Reshus") that are prohibited
on Shabbos and Yom Tov. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah calls Kiddushin a "Reshus" if
marriage is a Mitzvah. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to a case in which one is
already married and has children.

RASHI explains that the Mitzvah which one fulfills by getting married is the Mitzvah of Piryah
v'Rivyah, having children. Other than the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah, there is no inherent Mitzvah
in the act of getting married. This explains why the Gemara mentions that the case of the Mishnah
is not only where one already has a wife, but he already has children as well.

The ROSH in Kesuvos (1:12) writes that the reason why no blessing (Birkas ha'Mitzvah) is recited
for the act of Kiddushin is because there is no actual Mitzvah of Kidushin. The only reason why
one is obligated to get married is to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. The words of the Rosh
are consistent with the Gemara and Rashi here. However, the Rosh adds that one has the option to
fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah without getting married at all, by merely taking a Pilegesh
(concubine).

(a) According to the Rosh, why does the Gemara here say that the reason why the Mishnah does
not count Kidushin as a Mitzvah is because it refers to a case in which one already has a wife and
children? The Gemara should answer that there is no Mitzvah to marry a wife because one could
fulfill his obligation of Piryah v'Rivyah by taking a Pilegesh.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ishus 1:2) writes that marriage is a Mitzvas Aseh. The Rambam
apparently maintains that every time a man marries a woman he fulfills a Mitzvah. How does the
Rambam understand the Gemara here which says that one who is already married and has children
does not fulfill a Mitzvah by getting married?

(a) Apparently, since it is uncommon for a woman to agree to become a man's Pilegesh (since she
has no guarantee that the man will take care of her and her children, as she receives no Kesuvah
and there is no Kiddushin), the Gemara considers Kiddushin a Mitzvah because in practice one is
unlikely to fulfill Piryah v'Rivyah by taking a Pilegesh. He has no choice but to get married with
Kiddushin.
The Rosh in Kesuvos writes that no blessing is recited for the act of Kiddushin because it is not a
Mitzvah, as one could fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah by taking a Pilegesh. Even though it
is unlikely that one will find a woman to be his Pilegesh, since there exists the possibility of
fulfilling Piryah v'Rivyah without Kiddushin, Kiddushin is not considered an intrinsic part of the
Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah and thus no blessing is recited for it.

(b) The MAGID MISHNEH cites RABEINU AVRAHAM BEN HA'RAMBAM who was
asked a similar question concerning the opinion of the Rambam. He answered that the Rambam

14
does not mean that the act of Kiddushin is a Mitzvah, but rather that the act of Nisu'in is a Mitzvah
(which is expressed in the wording of the Rambam in his list of Mitzvos at the beginning of Hilchos
Ishus). When the Rambam writes that Kiddushin is a Mitzvah he means that it is the beginning of
the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Nisu'in. Here, too, the Gemara does not consider Kiddushin a
Mitzvah because without Nisu'in the Mitzvah is not completed.

Alternatively, perhaps the Rambam does not mean that it is a Mitzvas Aseh per se to marry a wife
with Kiddushin. Rather, he means that it is an Isur Aseh (a prohibition that results from a positive
commandment) to take a woman without Kiddushin. (The Rambam rules that taking a Pilegesh is
prohibited; see Hilchos Melachim 4:4.) The Magid Mishneh mentions this possibility later in
Hilchos Ishus (1:4). Accordingly, there is no actual Mitzvah in the act of Kiddushin, even
according to the Rambam.

Forbidden Activities

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

The Mishna on today's daf lists a series of different types of activities, all of which are forbidden
by the Sages on Yom Tov as well as on Shabbat. The categories are:

• Shevut – A Rabbinic ordinance, like climbing a tree or riding an animal

• Reshut – Something that is not always a mitzva, although it is certainly a good deed, like
getting married or trying a court case
• Mitzva – Actually fulfilling a commandment, like putting aside tithes or consecrating an
object to the Temple

All of these activities are forbidden by Rabbinic ordinance lest they lead to forbidden activities or
because they appear very similar to weekday activities. The commentaries discuss why there is a
need to create divisions between different types of Rabbinic prohibitions, given that the bottom
line is that they are all forbidden on both Shabbat and Yom Tov.

One approach is taken by Rabbeinu Tam who argues that there are real differences between the
cases, and that the Mishna is only discussing cases where the activity is not truly obligatory. If,
however, a mitzva will really be fulfilled by this action, then the Sages would permit the mitzva to
be done on Yom Tov.

Some suggest that even according to Rashi we will distinguish between the different categories in
a case where the act is performed bein ha-shemashot – in the moment when it is still questionable

4
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

15
whether the holiday has begun or not. At that moment we will be lenient and allow those activities
that are mitzvot to be done.

The Hatam Sofer argues that the Mishna must be understood to be saying that these activities are
forbidden if they are shevut or reshut from the perspective of the person doing them. If, however,
they are being done as a mitzva, the rule of the Mishna may not apply.

Sue Parker Gerson writes:5

The mishnah on our daf starts with a laundry list of rabbinic prohibitions that apply on festivals
just as they would on Shabbat. As Rashi explains, these matters fall into three
categories: shevut (actions that are not at all related to a mitzvah); reshut (optional activities that
are “mitzvah-adjacent” but not mitzvot themselves); and actual mitzvot.

Today, we are going to concentrate on the first category. Shevut refers to actions that have nothing
to do with the performance of a commandment and were prohibited by the rabbis on Shabbat. The
mishnah gives several examples:

And these are the acts (prohibited by the sages) as shevut: One may not climb a tree (on
Shabbat), nor ride on an animal, nor swim in the water, nor clap his hands together, nor clap
his hand on the thigh, nor dance.

The Gemara goes on to clarify why these non-mitzvah activities are prohibited on both Shabbat
and festivals. Climbing trees? That might lead to ripping something off the tree, which is
effectively harvesting. Or it might lead to someone breaking off a stick to use as a whip for riding
animals, which is itself a prohibited activity lest someone go riding beyond the acceptable
boundary of Shabbat movement that we learned about in Tractate Eruvin. And swimming? That
might lead you to build a tube or some other flotation device.

Yesterday, we again encountered the phenomenon of building fences around the Torah —
prohibiting something that itself isn’t objectionable, but might lead to an action that is. That same
sentiment is at work here. All these activities would seem to be permissible on Shabbat, except for
the fact that they may well lead to prohibited outcomes.

Except for the last ones: clapping, thigh-slapping and dancing. What prohibited action might that
lead to? The Gemara has an answer for that:

All of these are prohibited due to a decree that was made lest one fashion a musical instrument
(to accompany his clapping or dancing).

In other words, clapping, slapping and dancing are banned because they might involve the use of
musical instruments, which in turn might lead to crafting or repairing those instruments. But that
doesn’t actually make sense.

5
Myjewishlearning.com

16
On Sukkah 50, we learned that raucous music, including copious use of instrumentation, was not
only permitted on festivals (particularly Sukkot) during Temple times, but was a focal point of the
celebration. Earlier in this tractate, on Beitzah 30a, the Gemara notes this as well and adds this
comment.

Rava bar Rav Hanin said to Abaye: We learned in a mishnah: The rabbis decreed that one may
not clap, nor strike (a hand on his thigh), nor dance (on a festival, lest he come to repair musical
instruments). But nowadays we see that (women) do so, and yet we do not say anything to them.

Commenting on this passage, the medieval commentary Tosafot notes that, already in their time,
people were unlikely to create or repair musical instruments because they did not know how to do
so. Therefore, say Tosafot, these activities should be permitted. The Mishnah Berurah, an early
19th century commentary, agrees.

Today, many liberal Jewish communities use instrumentation, even on Shabbat. In Orthodox and
other more strictly observant settings, that doesn’t happen. But clapping, thigh-slapping and
dancing — these are regular features of festival and Shabbat worship even in Orthodox
communities. So while the ethos behind creating a fence around the Torah stands, the practicalities
change over time — which is great news for those of us that like to infuse our Shabbat and holiday
celebrations not only with singing, but with more active expressions of joy as well.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

The Mishna (Beitzah 5:2) in our daf (Beitzah 36b) lists a variety of activities which our Sages
forbade on Shabbat and Yom Tov for fear of what they may lead to. This includes ‫לא מטפחין ולא‬
‫‘ – מספקים ולא מרקדין‬we do not clap nor to we slap our hand to our thighs nor do we dance’ against
which a decree was established because, as the Gemara then proceeds to explain, ‫שמא יתקן כלי שיר‬
– ‘perhaps one may come to fix a musical instrument’.

Significantly, this prohibition is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 339:3). However,
the Rema then adds two fascinating statements relating to the prevalence of this practice that our
Sages forbade. Firstly, “[the reason why] nowadays people clap and dance and we do not publicly
object to them doing so is because it is better that they sin unintentionally [than do so knowingly]”.
This approach informs us that notwithstanding the fact that the prohibition exists, rabbinic policy
is not to object to those who are unaware of the prohibition.

But then, the Rema adds a second perspective (based on Tosfot on Beitzah 30a): “and there are
also those who say that, nowadays, everything is permitted because we are not proficient in the
fixing of musical instruments, so there is no reason to decree [‘perhaps one may come to fix a
musical instrument’] since this is a concern relating to something that is unlikely to occur. And it
is likely that based on this, the practice has emerged to be lenient on everything.”

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

17
The problem - as noted by Rav Asher Weiss (Responsa Minchat Asher Vol. 3 No. 24) who has
written a fascinating responsum on the subject - about the Rema’s second remark is that it implies
that once the reason why a rabbinic decree was established has since diminished, the decree no
longer applies. Yet, this is not the case (on this point see, for example, Beitzah 5a).

As R’ Weiss then proceeds to explain, the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 339:8-9) already raised this
concern and presents a fascinating proposition that the original prohibition only related to clapping,
slapping thighs and dancing in accompaniment of instrumental music which is why, absent of
musical accompaniment, clapping etc. is permitted. But as R’ Weiss explains, this approach does
not seem to align with the obvious meaning of the Gemara and Rishonim. Similarly, Rav Weiss
also rejects the theory posited by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (see Shulchan Shlomo on OC
339) that since only a small minority of people play instruments today, this decree no longer
applies.

Given all this, Rav Weiss claims that the original decree was made on the playing of musical
instruments (and thus the concern ‘perhaps one may come to fix a musical instrument’), which
was then extended to include clapping, slapping thighs and dancing. However, ‘where the original
reason for the decree no longer applies (while, it should be noted, the decree itself still applies –
JS), in such a situation we do not maintain the secondary decree which was only established
because of the existence of the original decree. As such, since the reason of the original decree
does not apply in our time, we can be lenient with [the activities included in the] extension to that
decree’.

Having explained this, Rav Weiss then proceeds to explain that the permission granted to dance
on Simchat Torah (see Magen Avraham on OC 669 and Mishna Berura on OC 339) is not just
localised to that day but also applies to other clapping and dancing on Shabbat and Yom Tov for
the purpose of bringing joy and inspiration to themselves and others because, based on his theory,
the decree against clapping etc. is only an extension of a decree.

Today, there are those who maintain the view that the decree against ‘we do not clap nor to we
slap our hand to our thighs nor do we dance’ still exists but who, for reasons of rabbinic policy,
generally don’t object to the practice. Then there are those who claim that it no longer applies and
who proactively clap and dance on Shabbat and Yom Tov for the purpose of bringing joy and
inspiration to themselves and others. And then there are those who aren’t sure but, like Rav Weiss,
believe that there is a halachic justification for this prevalent Jewish practice.

As someone who believes in the authority of the Shulchan Aruch, I am sensitive to this rule. But
as someone who believes in the value of fostering spiritual joy and inspiration, I am also sensitive
to the spiritual needs of me and those around me. In terms of what this means in practice – I’m
happy to share with those who are interested. But suffice to say that the above-mentioned
responsum is one of a myriad of reasons why I invest considerable time in the study of responsa,
and especially those penned by Rav Asher Weiss.

Instruments on Shabbat and Holidays

18
 Are they permitted?

Joshua Rabin writes:7

Instrumental music was an assumed part of worship in the biblical period, but in the rabbinic period
Jewish legal authorities began to question its permissibility on Shabbat and Jewish holidays. To
this day, the issue of musical instruments in Shabbat and holiday services remains controversial,
with different communities embracing divergent practices.

The Biblical Period

In the Bible, music is associated with praising God at times when words do not suffice. Musical
instruments appear in this context in biblical narratives, poetry, and legal sections.

Following the recitation of the Song at the Sea, the Book of Exodus famously states that, “Miriam
the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand; and all the women went out
after her with tambourines, dancing.” ( Exodus 15:20 )

7
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/instruments-on-shabbat-and-holidays/

19
In addition to tambourines, the Book of Psalms lists a variety of instruments that can be used in
praise of God. One psalm encourages worshippers to “praise Him with the sound of
the shofar!” ( Psalms 150:1-4 ); another states that it is “good to praise the Lord” with a “ten-
stringed harp, with voice and lyre together.” ( Psalms 92:1-4 )

Musical instruments are also an explicit part of the biblical commandments regarding holiday
observance: “And on your joyous occasions, your fixed festivals and new moon dates, you shall
sound the trumpets… they shall be a reminder before your God.” ( Numbers 10:10 )

ADVERTISING
In the first and second Temples, musical instruments were a part of the daily worship–every day
of the year, including Shabbat and holidays. The Mishnah even lists the number of instruments
used in the Temple during specific holidays ( Arakhin 2:3 ).

The Rabbinic Period

In the rabbinic period, however, the use of musical instruments on Shabbat and Yom Tov (major
holidays, like Rosh Hashanah and Passover, when work is forbidden) was eventually
prohibited. A mishnah in Tractate Beitzah states that “one may not smack or dance or clap on
Shabbat and Yom Tov” (5:2). The Talmud explains that “one may not smack or clap or dance,
lest one fix a musical instrument” ( BT Beitzah 36b ). Fixing a musical instrument is a prohibited
form of work on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Rashi notes that if clapping is forbidden because it might
lead to fixing an instrument, playing an instrument would obviously be prohibited as well, for the
same reason.

Rabbenu Hananel, a 10th century commentator from North Africa, explains that the prohibition of
smacking, dancing, or clapping is derived from a larger prohibition of excessive noisemaking on
Shabbat–and extends this reason to explain why musical instruments are also forbidden. (R.
Hananel on BT Shabbat 18a-b ). Though noisemaking does not fall under any of the 39 categories
of forbidden work on Shabbat, noise runs counter to the restful spirit of Shabbat.

Through the present day, authorities including Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef cited these two reasons–the
concern about fixing instruments and the prohibition against excessive noisemaking–as the major
rationales for prohibiting the use of musical instruments on Shabbat and Yom Tov (Responsa
Yehaveh Da’at 3:49).

However, some post-talmudic authorities limit the Talmud’s prohibition of clapping, dancing, and
playing musical instruments on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Tosafists of medieval France and
Germany state that the Talmud’s prohibition only applied in a time when people were skilled to
fix musical instruments (Tosafot Beitzah 30a ). Furthermore, Rabbi Menahem Ha-Meiri of 13th-
14th century France wrote that Nahmanides’ students played instruments on Shabbat (Meiri, Sefer
Magen Avot 10). Despite these more lenient positions, the major Jewish legal codes assert that

20
playing musical instruments is prohibited on Shabbat and Yom Tov (Mishneh Torah, Laws
of Shabbat 23:4 ; Shulhan Arukh OH 338-339 ).

There is, interestingly, some rabbinic debate about the permissibility of any music. Some sources
assert that since the Temple’s destruction music is prohibited in settings of excessive frivolity,
such as a wine house ( BT Sotah 48a ), and others state that after the destruction of the Temple
Jews are in a constant state of mourning, and so any and all music is prohibited ( BT Gittin 7a ).
Since there is debate among halakhic authorities about the scope of this prohibition, with some
authorities specifically stating that religious music is permitted (Rema to OH 560:3), this reason
is generally not cited as a source for prohibiting music on Shabbat and Yom Tov.

Jewish Communities Today

In keeping with the normative legal position, Orthodox communities do not use instrumental music
on Shabbat or Yom Tov, although many use vocal music as a means of enhancing worship.

While many Conservative communities do not permit the use of instruments on Shabbat or Yom
Tov, there have been a series of Conservative teshuvot (responsa) which have permitted various
types of instrumental music In 1958, the Conservative Committee on Jewish Law and Standards
(CJLS) published a paper from Rabbi Philip Segal, which permitted playing organ music in
synagogue on Shabbat. This paper cited the ways that organ music could enhance services,
categorizing an organ as a permissible “mitzvah accessory” (d’var mitzvah or machshir). The

21
paper also pointed out that the prohibition of musical instruments on Shabbat and Yom Tov was
rabbinic (shvut), and argued that the principle that rabbinic prohibitions do not apply in the Temple
sanctuary (ein shvut ba’mikdash) could be extended to include the synagogue sanctuary as well.

In 1970, the CJLS published another responsum which echoed the 1958 resolution and asserted
that one could play other acoustical instruments, such as the guitar, as part of Shabbat services.

Finally, Rabbis Elliot Dorff and Elie Spitz wrote a teshuvah in 2008 that would broadly permit
musical instruments on Shabbat, but that responsum, to date, has not become an accepted halakhic
position in the Conservative Movement. Though the main arguments for and against this most
recent responsum have not been made public outside the CJLS, the fact that the responsum was
not accepted by the rest of the CJLS seems to indicate continued disagreement about what should
be Conservative practice.

Indeed, there is significant diversity among Conservative congregations on this issue–some

continue to prohibit the use of musical instruments on Shabbat, while others are known for their
instrumental music. For example, Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, a Conservative congregation, was
made famous by Craig Taubman‘s “Friday Night Live,” an instrumental Friday evening service
with modern melodies, replicated in many communities.

In the Reform Movement, music by composers such as Debbie Friedman and Danny Maseng,
accompanied by guitar and other instruments, has become a standard part of services, including on
Shabbat and Yom Tov. In fact, Reform Judaism has long embraced the use of musical instruments
in synagogue.

The introduction of organ music into German Reform congregations in the 19th century was one
of the defining ways that Reform distinguished itself from Orthodoxy, prompting Orthodox rabbis
such as David Tzvi Hoffman to assert that music on Shabbat was prohibited not only for the
halakhic reasons mentioned above, but also because organ music was considered “imitating the
gentiles” (David Tzvi Hoffman, Melamed le-Ho’il 1:16).

In this sense, Hoffman’s debate with the nascent Reform Movement was not simply about
halakhah, but also about cultural integration. While the Reform Movement aimed for its worship
to be similar to Protestant services, Hoffman favored cultural distinctiveness.

22
Dancing or Clapping8

1. It's forbidden to dance or clap on Shabbat.[1] However, some have the minhag to
be lenient in these issues and one shouldn't protest those who are lenient. [2] Many
authorities say that one shouldn't rely on this minhag except in cases of
mitzvah.[3] Sephardim should be strict in all cases.[4]
2. For the honor of the Torah it's permissible to dance on Simchat Torah.[5] It is still
forbidden to clap and dance for a chattan and kallah.[6]

Rhythms or beats

1. It is forbidden to play a musical instrument even if the sound produced isn't

musical or rhythmic.[7] Examples of instruments included are whistles, rattles,
bells, horns, and groggers.[8]
2. It's forbidden to make music (a rhythm) using any tool or even one's hand.[9]
3. Therefore, one may not knock on a door with one’s fist in a rhythm.[10]
4. According to Ashkenazim, one may not use a door knocker to knock on the door
even without a rhythm as it is considered an instrument designated for making
sound.[11]
5. If there is no other entrance available and one needs to enter it is permitted to
open a door on Shabbat which has bells attached to it. It is preferable to remove
the bells before Shabbat.[12]

8
https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Dancing_and_Clapping_on_Shabbat

23
 6. It is permissible to use an object not designed for producing sound that are not
rhythmic. For example, it's permissible to tap on a glass (cup) to get the
audience's attention or knock on the door with a key.[13]
7. One may set an alarm clock before Shabbat even though it will make noise
on Shabbat.[14]
8. After fulfilling the mitzvah of blowing (or listening) to the Shofar one may not
blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashana for practice or amusement. The same
restriction applies to Shabbat and Yom Tov.[15]

Singing

1. It is permitted to sing or whistle (with one's mouth) on Shabbat.[16]

Sources
1. ↑ Shulchan Aruch 339:3, Rambam Shabbat 23:5. The Mishna in Beitzah 36b writes that it’s forbidden to
clap or dance on Yom Tov or Shabbat. The Gemara (36b) explains that this is a rabbinic prohibition in order
to prevent a person from coming to fix a musical instrument.
2. ↑ *Tosfot (Beitzah 30a s.v. Tenan) writes that the gezerah of Chazal only applied then when they were
experts in fixing musical instruments but it wouldn’t apply to us since we’re not experts in that area.
o The Bet Yosef 339:3 writes that the implication of all the poskim who simply copy the
prohibition of the Mishna is that they do not hold of the logic of Tosfot. The Shulchan Aruch
339:3 rules clearly that it’s forbidden to clap or dance on Shabbat.
o The Rama writes that the minhag is to be lenient based on the opinion of Tosfot that there’s
no prohibition anymore of coming to fix a musical instrument. The implication of the Rama
is that this minhag isn’t proper but it’s better not to inform people of the prohibition so that
they only violate it unintentionally and not deliberately.
o Aruch Hashulchan 339:5-9 writes that the logic to be lenient would be that our singing and
dancing nowadays is different and would never bring one to fixing an instrument and thus the
gezera of Chazal not to dance and clap wouldn't apply to our dancing or clapping.
o Sh"t Minchat Elazar 1:29 justifies the practice of dancing on Yom Tov for someone who
becomes very excited from dancing because it is like the leniency for the simchat mitzva of
dancing with the torah on Simchat Torah
3. ↑ The Mishna Brurah 339:10 writes that one shouldn’t rely on this minhag except in cases of mitzvah. This
is also the opinion of the Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 16:43-4. Sh"t Igrot Moshe 2:100 writes that even
though most rishonim forbid, since the rama quotes tosfot and that is the minhag there is what to rely on but
a baal nefesh should be strict. 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160) writes that based on the Rama
many people permit themselves to clap and drum their fingers while singing (and quotes Igrot Moshe in the
footnote).
4. ↑ Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:58, Sh"t Yabea Omer 3:22
5. ↑ 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160) , Beit Yosef 339 quoting Rav Hai Goan and Mahari Kolon
6. ↑ Mishna Brura 339:8, Shulchan Aruch Harav 339:2
7. ↑ 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1159)
8. ↑ 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1161)
9. ↑ Shulchan Aruch 338:1. The Gemara Eiruvin 104a has a dispute between Rav Menashe who forbids any
production of sound and Rava who only forbids making music (‫)קול של שיר‬. The Bet Yosef 338:1 quotes the
Rif and Rambam 23:4 who hold like Rava and infers from the Rosh 10:20 that he also holds like Rava.
However, the Rosh and Tur 338:1 quote the Rabbanu Chananel who holds like Rav Menashe. The reason of
Rava isn’t clear from the Gemara, Rashi, or Tosfot. However, the Rambam 23:4 writes that the reason of the
prohibition is the same as in the Mishna in Beitzah, so that one doesn’t come to fix an instrument. The
Magen Avraham 338:1 clearly understands like the Rambam as he even writes that really there is room for
being lenient as the Rama writes in 339:3. This is also codified in Mishna Brurah 338:1. The Mishna Brurah
adds that the prohibition is not limited to a musical instrument and also applies to one's hand.
10. ↑ 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160) based on Mishna Brurah 338:1 (see previous footnote for
background). See Orchot Shabbat 2:21(21) who agrees with this.

24
 11. ↑ Rama 338:1 writes that tone may not knock on the door with a knocker even though one doesn't intend to
make music because the knocker is designated to make noise. This is based on the Maharil 38:4. 39
Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1161), Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 23:55, The Shabbos Home (Rabbi
Simcha Cohen, vol 2, pg 535) quote this as halacha. Based on Beiur Halacha 338:1 s.v. Hoil,
the Shabbos Home writes that in cases of great need one is permitted to use the door knocker.
12. ↑ 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1161), Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 23:54
13. ↑ 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1160)
14. ↑ The Shabbos Home (Rabbi Simcha Cohen, vol 2, pg 537) and Sh"t Maharshag YD 1:7(2) permit.
However, Sh"t Igrot Moshe 4:70(4) only permits if it is not heard outside his personal room. See Shemirat
Shabbat KeHilchata 28:29 (and 28:30 in new edition) who permits before Shabbatsetting a mechanical alarm
clock that involves removing a pin (see there).
15. ↑ 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4, pg 1162)
16. ↑ Rama 338:1 permits whistling. The Magen Avraham 338:2 explains that this is only referring to whistling
which is not musical. However, Mishna Brurah 338:3 disagrees and says even if you whistle a song it is
permissible because it is with the mouth. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 16:2, Rav Aviner (Sh"t She'eilat
Shlomo 1:182), Rav Y.D. Soloveitchik (Divrei Harav, pg. 197-198) and 39 Melachos (Rabbi Ribiat, vol 4,
pg 1160) rule in accordance with the Mishna Brurah. Rabbi Mansour concludes that whistling on Shabbat is
permitted but adds that whistling in public isn't becoming of a Ben Torah.

Clapping and Dancing on Shabbos

Rabbi Avi Weinrib writes:9

With Purim lingering in the air and the rest of Adar still to follow, feelings of joy and happiness
permeate throughout our community. Memories of the singing and dancing on Purim cause one to

9
http://www.cckollel.org/html/parsha/vayikra/tzav5763.html

25
break out in spontaneous eruptions of joy, especially on Shabbos. However, we have all heard
about restrictions on Shabbos regarding clapping and dancing. What exactly are these restrictions,
and what is the basis for them?

The Background

The Mishna in Beitza [36b] rules that it is forbidden to clap one’s hands, bang on one’s thighs or
dance [on Yom Tov]. Tosfos explains [Shabbos 148b] that since these actions were generally done
to the accompaniment of musical instruments, the Sages were concerned that if one of the
instruments would break one might come to fix it on Yom Tov or Shabbos. Fixing an instrument
on Yom Tov or Shabbos would be a violation of the Melacha D’Oraisa of Maka BiPatish. [As an
aside R’ Yerucham Levovitz [Daas Torah Chaya Sora 24-3] offers a fabulous insight as to why we
see some of the decrees of Chazal as a bit farfetched. He explains that unfortunately we do not
fully appreciate the severity of a sin and how detrimental it is to us. If we would only realize how
serious sins are, we would fully understand why it was necessary to place so many fences around
them. We can compare it to a train approaching a busy thoroughfare. Before it arrives, there are
signs, flashing lights, and descending gates, which are there well before the train arrives, and go
up only after there is no chance of any damage being done. Since the consequences of being struck
by a speeding train are so severe, the more precautions there are, the better. How much more so is
a sin, which is so damaging to our body and soul. The Sages in their infinite wisdom saw it as
necessary to place many safeguards around sin.] Most Poskim are of the opinion that this
prohibition against repairing instruments would apply today as well. Tosafos [Beitzah 30a]
maintains that since we are not experts in repairing instruments this forbiddance is no longer
relevant. The Poskim struggle with Tosafos. Firstly, as a rule, even when the reason given no
longer applies, unless a spiritually greater court would actually uproot the decree it would still be
in effect. [See Bais Mayer 339-1 Igros Moshe O.H. 2 Siman 100]

Secondly, according to Tosafos would it also be permitted to actually play musical instruments as
well? The consensus of the Poskim is that even according to Tosafos, only clapping and dancing
would be permitted, and not the playing of actual instruments. [See Shut Shaar Ephraim 36 Eliyahu
Raba O.H. 339-1 Biur Halacha ibid s.v. ulisspek]

The Halacha

The Shulchan Aruch [O.H. 339-3] rules that it is forbidden to clap one’s hands, bang on one’s
thigh or dance on Shabbos. The Rema quoting Tosafos teaches that some say that nowadays, since
we are no longer experts in repairing instruments the decree is no longer applicable. However, the
Poskim do not fully concur with Tosafos. The Mishna Berura [S.K. 8] only permits this on Simchas
Torah where clapping and dancing is a Mitzvah in honor of the Torah. However for any other
reason, even other Mitzvos such as a Sheva Berachos it would not be permissible. [In many
Chasidic circles the custom is more lenient based on the Minchas Elozer [Volume 1 Siman 29]
who permits dancing and singing for those who are caught up in the joy of Shabbos since for them
it is considered a Mitzvah.]

What is Dancing?

26
Stepping back for a moment, it is incumbent upon us to define what is included in the category of
dancing. There is obviously a difference between walking around in a circle and dancing. The
Toras Shabbos [O.H.339-2] based on a Yerushalmi defines dancing as the action when one picks
up his first foot, then before it fully returns to the ground, the second foot has already begun to
rise. Any form of moving around in a circle that would not include this would be permitted.

Only to the Tune?

The Aruch HaShulchan [339-9] raises another point. He maintains that the only clapping and
dancing that was forbidden was where one is in tune with the song. Only in such a scenario is the
clapping or dancing intrinsically connected to the song and there is a worry one could come to fix
the broken instrument. Any form of clapping or dancing, which is sporadic and not done in tune,
would be permitted. Although some Poskim disagree with the Aruch HaShulchan, many see this
a basis for those who are lenient in these matters.

Banging and Snapping

Included in this decree would also be banging on a table or the like with or without any utensil.
Snapping one’s finger along with singing would also be included.

Clapping not Associated with Music

The Poskim rule that only clapping connected to song would be included. Clapping, snapping, or
banging to get another’s attention, wake someone up or silence an audience would be permitted [
O.H. 338 Mishna Berura S. K. 2,4]. Clapping for applause would also be permitted [Oz
Nidbiru Vol 13-14].

In an Abnormal Fashion

Clapping and banging was only forbidden in a normal fashion. If done in an abnormal way, for
instance clapping against the back of one’s hand, this would be permitted, as it would serve as a
reminder, and would not lead to fixing any instruments. [O.H. 339-3]

Whistling

Any form of music with one’s mouth was never included in the decree. Therefore one would be
allowed to whistle a tune or melody on Shabbos. This would be true even with the aid of one’s
fingers [Aruch Hashulchan O.H. 338-7].

Door Knockers

Included in the decree was any instrument that is made for the express purpose of making noise,
being that it is similar to a musical instrument. Therefore it is forbidden on Shabbos to use a door
knocker, bells, or play with a rattle even not in tune. However, one can knock on a door even with
a utensil such as a key as long as not being done to a tune. [O.H. 338-1]

27
 The Creation of Sound on Shabbat and Yom Tov
Moshe Taragin writes:10

The gemara in Eiruvin (104a) mentions a prohibition against using a utensil to generate
sound on Shabbat. Rava claims that only lyric or musical sound is forbidden, whereas Ulla and
Abaye seem to prohibit the production of ANY sound. Most Rishonim side with Rava because of
his successful defense against several questions originally cited to debunk his position. Rabbenu
Chananel appears to agree with the more stringent position of Ulla prohibiting any type of
sound. This position is supported by the Yerushalmi, which also appears to issue a sweeping
prohibition.

What remains unclear from the gemara in Eiruvin is the REASON that creating sounds
should be forbidden in the first place. A likely basis appears in a related gemara in our
daf Beitza (35b). The mishna prohibits dancing and clapping on Yom Tov and
the gemara clarifies that these activities are forbidden because they are typically associated with
formal song and dance. Engaging in these activities may lead to repairing musical instruments,
which itself is forbidden because of tikkun manah - repairing any item is equivalent to
construction. Presumably, Rava and Ulla extend this reason to any FORM of sound emission. Not
only clapping but creating sound through any device may cause a person to repair musical
instruments. Rava and Ulla merely debate what type of sound would create this peril, with Ulla
taking a more stringent view.

However, Abaye's questioning of Rava in the gemara may lead to an interesting

alternative. Abaye seeks to prove that even non-musical sounds are forbidden by citing a source
banning the use of a water pipe which issues a comforting sound. He demonstrates from this
source that "alodi kola" - creating any sound is forbidden. By employing the term "alodi," which

10
https://torah.etzion.org.il/en/shiur16-creation-sound-shabbat-and-yom-tov

28
literally means "giving birth" to sound, Abaye may be asserting a different basis for the prohibition
against the emission of sound – molid, creating new items - which is forbidden on Shabbat.

Of course, this assumes that we can extend the prohibition of molid to sound
creation. The gemara in Shabbat discusses the prohibition of molid regarding creating fragrances
on Shabbat. Some authorities felt that the molid notion could be extended to any new "creation,"
as routine as that may be. For example, Rav Yitzchak Shmelkes, in his famous responsa known
as Beit Yitzchak, forbade electricity on Shabbat because he deemed the creation of a flow of
electric current to be molid. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach refutes this notion, claiming that any
'routine' action cannot be deemed molid. This debate may influence the ability to view molid as a
potential source for the prohibition of sound emission.

In theory, molid may serve as the source for the sound emission prohibition even according
to Rava, who limited the prohibition to musical sound. According to his view, not every ethereal
sound would be considered significant enough to breach the violation of molid. Only by creating
beneficial sound would a person transgress the prohibition of molid.

In fact, this concept that sound emission may be prohibited because of molid and not only
because of the fear of repairing musical instruments - appears in the presentation of the Shulchan
Arukh, who, like most decisors, adopted Rava's position. In siman 378, he cites the situation of
generating sound through utensils, but he does not link the prohibition to the fear of repairing
musical instruments. In the subsequent siman, he lists the prohibition of clapping and dancing and
does in fact trace the issue to the concern of repairing instruments. Perhaps, then, the Shulchan
Arukh agreed to this distinction: Generating sound through utensils is considered molid and
forbidden, as long as the sound is musical or rhythmic in nature. Dancing and clapping are not
forbidden because they generate sound but because they are actions associated with song and raise
the concern of repairing musical instruments.

The question as to whether the prohibition of "sound generation" stems from the fear of
repairing instruments or an independent issue of molid affects several interesting secondary
questions. Chief among these questions is a fascinating position cited by the Beit Yosef in the
name of the Aggur and adopted by the Rama. They claim that Rava's qualification that only
musical sounds are forbidden applies to general utensils. Regarding an instrument used
specifically to emit sound, ANY SOUND - –even non-musical - is forbidden. Since
the halakha adopts this limitation, any item that is intended for the generation of sound may not
be used on Shabbat regardless of the sound which it emits. In fact, in many European hamlets,
the shamash, whose job it was to awaken villagers to shul, would strike a different object when
creating this noise on Shabbat.

Most commentators have a difficult time explaining this limitation; perhaps the
aforementioned discussion may justify this limitation. If general sound emission is forbidden
because it may lead to instrument repair, it would be difficult to apply greater stringency to
specifically designed instruments which emit non-musical sound. The entire prohibition is based
around the concern of repairing musical instruments. Based on this model, Rava limited
the issur to musical sounds. Why should a scenario including general non-musical sound emitting
items run a greater risk of repairing MUSICAL instruments??

29
 If, however, the prohibition stems from the concern of molid, perhaps the following logic
may be suggested. Rava limited the prohibition to musical sounds because general sounds are not
significant enough to be considered molid. However, any sound emitted from an instrument
SPECIFICALLY INTENDED toward THAT SOUND is automatically considered significant,
and molid has been breached.

A second issue may pertain to the question of emitting sound without performing any
action on Shabbat. Would a person be allowed to leave the radio on during Shabbat? In this
particular situation, a different concern may ban this behavior; we might not allow loud activities
which may raise suspicion regarding Shabbat violation. For example, one may not allow his water
mill to continue running on Shabbat, for this may invite suspicion that he started the mill on
Shabbat (a Biblical prohibition)(see Rama OC 152). Similarly, leaving a radio blaring might
imply that he turned the radio on during Shabbat, and it would therefore be forbidden. Beyond
this concern of inviting suspicion, however, would automatic genesis of sounds - commenced
before Shabbat - violate the prohibition against emitting sound?

Conceivably, if the prohibition stems from the concern that instruments will be repaired,
any presence of musical sound may advance that danger. If the prohibition surrounds the
CREATION of sound and the transgression of molid, only active creation during Shabbat would
cause this violation.

Is it Permissible to Dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov?

R. Moshe Kurtz writes:11

11
https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/10/is-it-permissible-to-dance-on-shabbos-and-yom-tov/

30
This year, many synagogues will reluctantly curtail or omit the dancing from their Simchas Torah
services in order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. R. Hershel Schachter published
a responsum (Piskei Corona #55) on October 2nd, 2020 in which he advised that similar
to Hoshanos either the chazzan (prayer leader) should be the only one making the rounds or it
might be better to dispense with the dancing this year altogether. While a number of us may be
chagrined to forgo our Simchas Torah dancing, I would like to take the opportunity to summarize
the main opinions regarding the prohibition and potential dispensation for dancing on Shabbos
(Sabbath) and Yom Tov (Holidays).

It all begins with a Mishnah in Beitza (36b) which explicitly bans clapping and dancing on Shabbos
and Yom Tov:
And these are the acts prohibited by the Sages as a shevus: One may not climb a tree on Sabbath,
nor ride an animal, nor swim in the water, nor clap his hands together, nor clap his hand (on
his thigh), nor dance…

The Talmud explains that clapping and dancing were Rabbinically prohibited “due to a decree that
was made lest one assemble a musical instrument (to accompany his clapping or dancing).”

It would seem that the ancient and accepted practice of dancing on Simchas Torah is at odds with
the ban of the Mishnah. How do we reconcile the practice of dancing on Shabbos and Yom Tov
with what is clearly a Rabbinical prohibition?

The Rema’s (O.C. 339:3) first explanation accomplishes the opposite of reconciliation. He writes
that “Today people clap and dance and we do not stop them because it is better that they sin
unintentionally.” The Rema, in this approach, affirms that the ban of the Mishnah remains in full
force today. However, it seems that many take a different approach, as many great Torah scholars
permit dancing and clapping during services on a regular Shabbos. As we will see, they follow
alternative understandings of this issue…

The second approach of the Rema, based on Tosafos (Beitza 30a) tackles the issue from a different
angle. Tosafos suggest that “since we are not experts in assembling instruments it is not possible
to apply this ban.” In other words, while the ban did indeed prohibit dancing on Shabbos and Yom
Tov, it no longer applies since the circumstances have changed.

R. Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe O.C. 2:100) is deeply troubled by this approach as it ostensibly
contradicts a fundamental principle of Jewish jurisprudence – the law applies even absent the
impetus for its creation. R. Feinstein answers based on the first approach of the Rema, that we can
observe that since the earlier Rabbis did not wish to rebuke those who danced on Shabbos and
Yom Tov, we can see that the will of the Rabbis was to permit such a practice when absent the
circumstances. Therefore, there is an implicit understanding that the rabbis of later generations
agreed to revoke this Rabbinical prohibition. (This topic deserves further analysis, but it will take
us too far afield.)

In any case, it is interesting to note that the Rema only allowed for two extremes: Either the ban
on dancing no longer applies, or it remains in force and the masses have been sinning all the while.

31
However, there are more conservative approaches that attempt to provide a balanced
reconciliation:

The third approach at reconciliation affirms that it is permitted to dance on Shabbos nowadays
while also maintaining that the Rabbinical ban on dancing remains fully in effect. The Aruch
HaShulchan (339:9) distinguishes between the type of dancing that the Rabbis of the Mishnah
referred to versus what we permit on Shabbos. The dancing that the Tannaim had in mind was the
type that accompanied instrumental music. Whereas the clapping and dancing that the Aruch
HaShulchan observed was simply an accompaniment for singing alone. Along a similar line of
reasoning, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is cited in Shulchan Shlomo (Yom Tov, Vol. 2, 524, Fn.
3) as distinguishing between the dancing that the Mishnah referred to versus circle-dancing which
he terms halicha b’alma, essentially walking. While this discrepancy is compelling, the type of
dancing that can be observed on Simchas Torah or yeshivas and summer camps can sometimes
take on a more untamed nature. Thus, for those relying on R. Auerbach, it would be necessary to
regulate the style of dancing they choose to promote since not all circle dances would likely
constitute halicha b’alma.

Indeed, Rabbi Dr. Aaron Glatt (“COVID Considerations with Daled Minim”, Sept. 2020) advises
that “maybe this year we celebrate and demonstrate our love of Torah with a special shiur (class)
from the Rav (rabbi), with the congregation masked and distanced instead of dancing wildly.” The
subtle message is that wild dancing is not encouraged even in a typical year.

An additional concern that may be raised is that dancing with the Torah wildly can compromise
the respect of the Torah scroll itself. Perhaps another alternative, when it is safe, would be for the
congregation to dance around one person who is standing in the middle of the circle and holding
the Torah scroll, as suggested by R. Nachum Rabinovich (Responsa Siach Nachum, No. 40).

The final approach that we will note is introduced by the Maharik and adopted by the Magen
Avraham (O.C. 339:3:1): Simchas Torah is simply an exception to the rule and was not included
within the ban. Since the dancing of Simchas Torah is done solely for displaying honor for God’s
Torah, the Sages would have surely sanctioned it. The Minchas Elazar (1:29) extrapolates from
the Maharik that not only is dancing on Simchas Torah permitted, but it would stand to reason it
is acceptable to dance on any Yom Tov!

Subsequently, the Minchas Elazar provides an important caveat that dancing is a subjective way
of serving God. While for some it makes them feel closer to Hashem, there are many who do not
dance and find it laborious. This is an important factor to keep in mind since dancing does not
appeal to all people.

Also, R. Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Da’as 2:58) points out that while the Rema provided a basis for
leniency, R. Yosef Karo (author of the Shulchan Aruch) ruled with a sakina charifa (a sharp knife)
that dancing on Shabbos and Yom Tov was prohibited without qualification. Thus, R. Yosef urges
his constituents to inform their fellow Sephardim to refrain from dancing on Shabbos and Yom
Tov.

32
While there are undoubtedly great scholars and rabbinic leaders who have offered various ways to
reconcile the ban of the Mishnah with the generally accepted practice of dancing on Shabbos and
Yom Tov, it is worthwhile to conclude with R. Moshe Feinstein’s final line in his responsum on
the topic:

“Since the author of the Shulchan Aruch disagrees (with the Rema) and the reasoning of
Tosafos is difficult to comprehend, it at very least behooves those who are God-fearing to be
stringent. However, in practice, we see that there are many who are lenient.”

The Tisch: Hands that Clap by Themselves

The rabbinic prohibition only applies to those who clap their hands consciously.

Levi Cooper writes:12

Rabbi Yisrael Nissan Kupershtoch (1858-1930) grew up in the milieu of the Warka Hassidim in
Poland. After his marriage, he traveled to his wife’s uncle, Rabbi Yehiel Dancyger (1828-1894),

12
https://elmad.pardes.org/2012/03/the-tisch-hands-that-clap-by-themselves/

33
the founder of what would become the Aleksander Hassidic dynasty. Rabbi Kupershtoch served
in the rabbinate in Poland, and in 1924 he left for the Land of Israel.

Many of his writings were lost, but after arriving in British Mandate Palestine, he published one
volume of his legal writings: Responsa Ani Ben Pahma (Jerusalem 1928). In this collection, he
recounts a fascinating episode that he witnessed in his youth.

As a young boy, he had studied under Rabbi Yisrael Eliyahu Yehoshua Trunk of Kutno (1820-
1893) – a renowned halachic authority and a disciple of the Kotsker rebbe, Rabbi Menahem
Mendel Morgensztern (1787-1859). Besides serving in the rabbinate in a number of Polish towns,
Rabbi Trunk authored Yeshuot Yisrael (Warsaw 1870) – a work on the civil law section of the of
the Jewish Code of Law – and Yavin Da’at (Piotrkow, 1932) on the ritual sections of the Code. In
addition to Yavin Da’at, his responsa were published posthumously under the title Responsa
Yeshuot Malko (Piotrkow, 1927-1939).

In a way, Rabbi Trunk represented the resolution of the enmity between the hassidic community
and the opponents of hassidism, the Mitnagdim. His very name reflected that resolution: His
parents gave him three names – Yisrael, after the person who inspired the hassidic movement, the
famous Rabbi Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov (c. 1700-1760); Eliyahu, after the highest rabbinic authority
who opposed the nascent hassidic movement, Rabbi Eliyahu the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797); and
Yehoshua, after Rabbi Ya’acov Yehoshua Falk (1680-1756), the great talmudist and author of Pnei
Yehoshua (Frankfurt-am- Main and Furth 1752-1780) – a commentary and novellae on the
Talmud. Rabbi Trunk’s parents, it appears, blessed their son with straddling more than one world.

Rabbi Kupershtoch described how he sat as a young boy at Rabbi Trunk’s Shabbat table, and Rabbi
Trunk would often cry out in excitement, “Master of the universe!” – first in Aramaic and then in
the Yiddish vernacular. And he would be moved to clap his hands animatedly.

One particular Shabbat, this conduct apparently irked one of the guests, as Rabbi
Kupershtoch reported: “And there was one person – an extremely learned and God-
fearing person… who heard the sound and [saw] the clapping of the hands and he bent

34
down and whispered the following in the holy ears [of R. Trunk]: Master, does it not
say that we do not clap?'”

The guest – who, according to Rabbi Kupershtoch, was not of the hassidic ilk – was
referring to the Mishna that rules that we do not dance, clap, or drum a beat on our
thigh on Shabbat and festivals (M. Beitza 5:2). The Talmud explains that this
prohibition is a rabbinic enactment to ensure that we do not repair musical instruments
while in the ecstatic mode of moving to the rhythm of music (B. Beitza 36b). This
position was accepted as normative law, save on the festival of Simhat Torah, when a
special license to dance was granted (Shulhan Aruch OH 339:3). Thus the guest was
wondering how his esteemed host, a recognized halachic authority, could blatantly
contravene Jewish law.

Rabbi Trunk’s response – as recorded by Rabbi Kupershtoch – was surprising: “Oh,

they clap by themselves, they clap by themselves, and there is no [transgression of a]
prohibition, Heaven forfend.”

Rabbi Trunk did not clearly spell out why he felt that his clapping was permitted, but
writing many years later, his student elucidated the master’s meaning: “Because his
heart was aroused, his limbs were aroused to movement to clap hands. Certainly he
did not transgress a rabbinic prohibition with this.”

Rabbi Kupershtoch continued to explain that when one is enthusiastically serving the
Almighty, he may clap his hands, given that he has no conscious intention to do so.
The rabbinic prohibition only applies to those who clap their hands consciously. In the
case of Rabbi Trunk, his hands were clapping of their own accord as a result of his
passionate and unbridled Shabbat enthusiasm.

35
 Myths and Facts: Musical Instruments on Shabbat
Mah Rabu writes:13

This post addresses popular misconceptions concerning classical halachic sources about playing
musical instruments on Shabbat. The purpose of this post is not to promote a particular stance
about halacha (what should and shouldn’t be done) or meta-halacha (how one should determine
what should and shouldn’t be done). I’m not suggesting (chas veshalom) that the only (or the best)
way to justify one’s practices is by finding a pre-modern halachic text that supports them; I’m just
clarifying what those pre-modern texts do and don’t say. Of course, people may have all sorts of
reasons for their practices, including aesthetic preferences, mimetic traditions, logical arguments,
and cultural/denominational/communal identities.

My goal is not to invalidate those reasons, but to knock them off their “halachic” high horse. The
intended result is that when we’re discussing questions about musical instruments on Shabbat —
in distinguishing one community from another, or talking about where we will and won’t daven,
or determining policies for our pluralistic communities — we’ll have to be explicit about those
aesthetic preferences, mimetic traditions, logical arguments, and
cultural/denominational/communal identities, rather than simply playing the “I’m halachic and
you’re not” get-out-of-jail-free card.14

13
https://mahrabu.blogspot.com/2008/01/myths-and-facts-musical-instruments-on.html
14
No, I don’t think such a card should exist in the first place, whether it’s the “forbidden” card of Stage 1 or the “uncomfortable”
card of Stage 2, but I can’t change the world overnight.

36
If you find factual inaccuracies in the post, please post corrections in the comments (with
appropriate citations), and I’ll update the post. If you have a stance on the issue that differs from
mine, then that’s swell — I totally support your right to have different aesthetic preferences,
mimetic traditions, logical arguments, or cultural/denominational/communal identities, or to come
up with new and innovative halachic interpretations.

15

Fact: In all of Jewish tradition, there is no value of X for which “We don’t do X on Shabbat (but
do X on weekdays) because of mourning for the destruction of the Temple.” In fact, many things
are precisely the opposite. Public mourning is forbidden on Shabbat, so many personal and
communal mourning practices are suspended on Shabbat.

So where does this idea come from in the first place? Perhaps from sources such as the Gemara’s
statement in Gittin 7a (codified by the Rambam in Hilchot Ta’aniyot 5:14 and by the Shulchan
Aruch in OH 560:3) that in the aftermath of the destruction, all music (instrumental or vocal) is
now forbidden (any day of the week). Needless to say, this prohibition is not widely observed. In
light of this, later commentators have limited its scope, but none by saying that it specifically refers
to Shabbat.

[Yes, there is a principle of ¹ (rabbinic prohibitions regarding Shabbat do not

apply in the Temple), and this principle may have some relevance to the question of musical
instruments on Shabbat (viz. it means that the fact that musical instruments were played in the
Temple on Shabbat isn’t sufficient to convince everyone that musical instruments are ok outside
the Temple on Shabbat). But it is undisputed that this means in the Temple, not at the time of the
Temple. Any restrictions that apply today outside the Temple also applied in the time of the
Temple outside the Temple. And Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:1 shows one example of these
restrictions being relaxed (not strengthened) after the destruction.]

15
Many thanks to R. Elisha Ancselovits and his Hilchot Shabbat class for introducing me to a number of these sources. However,
any mistakes are my own, as are formalistic interpretations that Rav Elisha would almost certainly frown upon. The deeper
discussions about what the sources are really talking about are an important conversation, perhaps for a later post, but this post is
addressing the sources on the most literal level, in order to clear up misconceptions so that that conversation can start with a
clean(er) slate.

37
Fact: From the larger context of the Mishnah (Sukkah chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5),
it’s not at all clear that the flute itself is the reason that simchat beit hashoeivah isn’t done on
Shabbat or yom tov. These mishnayot are built around the short mnemonic phrases in Sukkah
4:1, and “‫ ”החליל‬could simply be synecdoche for the celebration as a whole, much as ìåìá
is synecdoche for all four species, and and ‫ ערבה‬is a synecdoche for the whole ceremony of
encircling the altar. There are certainly other aspects of simchat beit hashoeivah that are more
obvious Shabbat prohibitions, such as lighting fire (for non-sacrificial purposes), and perhaps
excessive levity.

Fact: Not quite. Mishnah Beitzah 5:2 lists a number of activities that are rabbinically prohibited
on Shabbat and yom tov, and the list includes clapping and dancing. The Gemara then provides
reasons for these prohibitions, and states, as the reason for prohibiting clapping and dancing, ‫גזרה‬
‫ שמא יתקן כלי שיר‬a rabbinic decree lest one repair a musical instrument [on Shabbat].

It’s certainly not such a huge logical leap from saying that clapping and dancing are forbidden on
Shabbat lest one repair a musical instrument to saying that playing a musical instrument is also
forbidden. But that’s not what the decree actually said. So those who think that clapping and
dancing are permitted on Shabbat should think carefully before citing this source as a reason for
prohibiting musical instruments.

Fact: Supposing that hat ‫ גזרה שמא יתקן כלי שיר‬is a reason for prohibiting musical instruments on
Shabbat, the question arises as to which repairs are of concern. Tuning is not mentioned in any of
the sources (and is not what would ordinarily be considered “repair”), and replacing a broken
string is explicitly permitted by Tosefta Eruvin 8:19 (at least under limited conditions, which
aren’t 100% clear).

Tosafot (Beitzah 30a) distinguishes between “their time”, when they were expert at making

38
musical instruments, and “our time”, when we’re not. (They even go so far as to say that the decree
doesn’t apply in “our time” as a result.) So they clearly understand the prohibited “repairs” to be
significant enough to require a luthier or other skilled professional, in contrast to tuning an
instrument or replacing a broken guitar string, which any amateur musician can do.

Fact: The sources do not mention such a distinction. If the issue with musical instruments is is
‫ שמא יתקן כלי שיר‬then percussion instruments are just as much at issue (since they can be repaired,
and since they can accompany clapping and dancing). And if the issue is ‫( השמעת קול‬making
noise), then this category is also construed to include sounds that are percussive (or otherwise
non-melodic) in nature, such as letting a mill run during Shabbat (Shabbat 18a), knocking on a
door (Eruvin 104a), and a baby’s rattle (Shulchan Aruch OH 339:3). (In fact, the Me’iri cites a
view that the prohibition is only on loud percussion, and not on other music.)

Fact: First of all, the classical sources about musical instruments on Shabbat don’t mention
anything about prayer at all. The question of which (if any) prayers are being accompanied never
comes up. Second of all, kabbalat shabbat didn’t even exist before the 16th century.
Yes, there are communities where instruments are played during kabbalat shabbat (BEFORE
SUNDOWN) and not during ma’ariv (before or after sundown). But the relevant distinction here
is between playing instruments on Friday (universally acceptable, except among those who hold
by the opinion above that all music is forbidden) and playing instruments on Shabbat. Two possible
ways for Shabbat to begin are 1) the setting of the sun, 2) the recitation of Psalm 92 at the end of
kabbalat shabbat. Once either of these has happened, it is Shabbat, and the community’s Shabbat
practices (whatever those may be) go into effect.

This means that if the entire service takes place after sundown (for example, during the winter),
there is no basis in premodern sources for distinguishing between kabbalat shabbat and ma’ariv.
Of course, one might have an aesthetic (or other) basis, which is not the subject of this post.

Avi comments:

39
The Gush shuffle was started at Yeshivat Har Etzion, aka Gush, because either Rav Amital or Rav
Lichtenstein(I forget which one) forbid dancing on Shabbat. So there are people who are careful
about not dancing on Shabbat.

Your analysis is technically correct that the prohibition explicitly mentions dancing and clapping,
but that could be because playing an instrument was considered an obvious prohibition. Of course
the tosefta you mention could make the whole issue moot.

I think the distinction people make with percussion instruments is more using a table/bench as a
drum vs. a traditional instrument. If people argue that using a tunable drum is permissible and a
flute isn’t you’re right that there is no support for their argument.

Finally, if you think about the possible issues you mentioned: tuning, breaking a string, repairing.
I think it’s interesting to note that the least problematic instrument would probably be a pipe organ.

The SA (OH 342:1) rules, based on a gemara at Eruvin 32b, that anything forbidden rabbinically
may be permitted during bein hashemashot if it is for a devar mitzvah. Some will thus claim that
to improve one's tefillah experience, musical instruments may be permitted during this (relatively
brief) post-shekiya time. I believe that there have been some attempts at "community" davenings
that intended to take advantage of this claim, though I think that they did not happen in the end.

One can accept Shabbat even prior to sunset, so long as it is after pelag haminha. SA OH 263:10
cites a number of views, but states that "for us" (referring to those who say KS) it begins with
Mizmor Shir leYom haShabbat. Thus, one could _never_ use instruments for Maariv (and the last
two psalms of KS), whereas they would be forbidden for KS only sometimes (e.g. your winter
case). Again, if one were to make an argument based on OH 342 cited above, then you could
presumably permit even in Ma'ariv where you began early.

40
 Keep the Beat?

Question: I am a member of YU’s a cappella group, The Maccabeats. We recently made a clip
of the zemer Dror Yikra, in which we use Kiddush cups, hands, and table as a means to create
a beat. Someone suggested we are encouraging a forbidden action on Shabbat: using an
instrument to produce music. Is it forbidden on Shabbat, and are we responsible for a viewer’s
possible halachic mistake?16

Answer: The mishna our daf (Beitza 36b) forbids one to clap, bang with his hands on his thighs,
or dance on Shabbat, and the gemara explains that it is out of concern one will be metaken (lit.,
fix) a musical instrument. The gemara (Eiruvin 104a) says that while there is a machloket whether
one can use a utensil to make non-musical sounds, one certainly may not use an instrument to
produce pleasant noises.

There has long been tension between these halachot and practice. The gemara (Beitza 30a) says
that the reason rabbis did not protest when people clapped and danced is that it is better that people
sin unknowingly than knowingly.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 339:3), bothered by such practices in his time, said that either that
concern of non-compliance still exists or people rely on Tosafot (Beitza 30a). Tosafot says that
since nowadays people do not know how to make musical instruments, the prohibition does not

16
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/22995

41
apply. Although Tosafot’s thesis is surprising and not widely accepted, the Rama cites it as a
second possible explanation for lenient practice.

How far does the leniency go? The Mishna Berura (339:10) says that the Rama (reluctantly)
condones only clapping, thigh banging, and dancing, not use of noise-making and musical
instruments. Others understand the Rama broadly. Actually, the Rama elsewhere (OC 338:3; Shut
125; see Magen Avraham 338:5) clarifies himself. One may make a beat with non-instruments.
Musical instruments are permitted only for a non-Jew to play at our behest (the Rama referred to
wedding celebrations, which in the past could continue into Shabbat).

Our minhag nowadays is not to use musical instruments (even by non-Jews for mitzvot). Regarding
not classical musical instruments for music, including making an audible beat while singing (e.g.,
"drumming" on a table), the Mishna Berura (ibid.) and contemporary poskim (see Shemirat
Shabbat K’hilchata 28:41; Yalkut Yosef 338:1; Orchot Shabbat 21:33) forbid it; we agree.
Yet, it is undeniable that many serious Jews do bang on the tables during zemirot. They apparently
rely on the lenient opinions and the assumption that any action that enhances an activity that
enhances Shabbat (e.g., davening, zemirot) is grounds for leniency in the case of a mitzva.

(The latter assumption is far from simple – see Tosafot, Sukka 50a – further discussion
development is beyond our scope). We would neither permit nor come out against one who
"drums" in this way.

Back to your cups. Cups are not a musical instrument. Are cups on a table worse than hands on a
table, considering that, either way, the table is a makeshift drum? (Unlike most drums, a bongo
drum is played by hands on an instrument). They might be slightly worse, as hands hitting many
things, including each other, produce noise, so hands on a table may be compared to clapping,
while cups on a table more closely resemble a makeshift musical instrument (see Shulchan Aruch,
OC 339:3). Importantly, the lenient practice is regarding hands, not instruments, on the table (Bnei
Banim I:12).

You were filmed during the week, like Chassidic music artists singing zemirot with orchestras.
Yet because people might think what you did is permitted on Shabbat, they could mistakenly copy
you on Shabbat. Lifnei iver does not apply to cases where you neither facilitate nor encourage a
violation. If it were a clear violation of Shabbat, there would be more reason to make clear
disclaimers to avoid confusion. However, since some rabbis would permit the cups and most rabbis
do not protest when people do something similar (i.e., banging with hands), any step you might
take to avoid confusion is, perhaps laudable, but not mandated.

42
Laurie Novick writes:17

How did the custom of dancing with the Sefer Torah on Simchat Torah come about? How can
women celebrate Simchat Torah during the hakafot?

Celebrating Simchat Torah

The widespread custom of celebrating Simchat Torah by dancing with the Torah in the synagogue
is a relatively recent innovation in Jewish terms.

Sukkot has always been a time for great rejoicing, zeman simchateinu. In the time of Beit Ha-
mikdash, the Simchat Beit Ha-sho’eiva [festival of the water-drawing] on chol ha-mo'ed included
dancing, though Rambam points out that only the scholars would dance, while the general
populace looked on.

Rambam Hilchot Shofar Ve-sukka Ve-lulav 8:14

17
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/women-and-mitzvot/women-dancing-torah

43
It is a mitzva to increase this celebration. It was not done by the ordinary people and whoever
wanted to; rather, the great sages of Israel and the heads of the yeshivot and the Sanhedrin and
the pious ones and the elders and men of [notable] deeds, they were the ones who would dance
and clap and play music and rejoice in the mikdash on the days of the holiday of Sukkot. But
all the people, all the men and women, came to see and to hear.

On Yom Tov itself, however, dancing was not customary, and was even in violation of a rabbinic
prohibition: see our daf Beitza 36b:

These are the [matters prohibited] because of shevut [on a rabbinic level]…and that they not
pound, and not clap, and not dance.

Still, as early as the geonic period, we have record of communal dancing on Simchat Torah – as
well as rabbinic approval of the practice:

Geonic Responsa Sha'arei Teshuva 314

On this second day of Yom Tov, which is the last, we are accustomed that even some of the
elder’s dance when praises are said to the Torah. But this is because [the prohibition against
dancing] is shevut [rabbinic] and they acted leniently on this day only, in honor of the Torah.

The custom to dance in honor of the Torah on Simchat Torah was considered sufficiently weighty
to override a rabbinic prohibition.[1] Not surprisingly, this custom is first recorded outside of
Israel, in Babylonia, where the second day Yom Tov of Shemini Atzeret was also the day on which
the annual cycle of Torah reading was completed.[2]

How did the Sifrei Torah become part of the dancing?

Especially given how careful we are about honoring the Torah, how did the custom to dance with
the Sefer Torah develop?

In the Middle Ages, inspired by the hoshanot (circuits with lulav and etrog on Sukkot), a practice
began in Ashkenaz of removing all Sifrei Torah from the aron kodesh on Simchat Torah, and of
circling the bima with them, much as we circle the bima for hoshanot over the course of the
holiday. Rema provides a report:

Shulchan Aruch OC 669 Rema

We call the last day of Yom Tov “Simchat Torah,” because we rejoice and make a festive meal
for the completion of the Torah, and we have a custom that the one who completes the Torah
and the one who begins Bereishit pledge donations and invite others to make a festivity. They
had the custom in these lands to take out all the Torah scrolls from the aron on Simchat Torah
at ma’ariv and shacharit, and sing songs and praises, each place in accordance with its custom.
They also had the custom to go around the bima of the synagogue with the Torah scrolls, like
we go around it with the lulav, and it is all for rejoicing.

44
Rema does not specifically mention dancing here, though he does write about singing in honor of
the Torah. He also notes without criticism that customs vary: "each place in accordance with its
custom."

Though these developments were centered in Ashkenaz, Rema's late sixteenth-century

contemporary in Eretz Yisrael, Arizal, innovated another such custom— dancing with the Sefer
Torah for a full seven circuits around the bima.[3] This practice was popularized in the eighteenth
century by a work of unknown authorship called Chemdat Yamim.[4]

Chemdat Yamim III Sukka 8

…One who increases all types of rejoicing before the Sefer Torah arouses rejoicing above, for
'the mother of children is happy,' [with] 'joy and glory,' and therefore we take out the Torah
scrolls and stand them up in their wedding canopy and first make a great rejoicing before the
scrolls as [for] a groom and bride who enter the wedding canopy…Afterwards the great ones of
Israel, the Torah sages, take the Torah scrolls out of their wedding canopy and open their
mouths with a pleasant voice of song and praise and thanksgiving and melody and thanksgiving
to God before the Torah scrolls and go around the bima with them seven circuits (hakafot)
corresponding to the seven circuits of Hoshana Rabba…It is fitting for every servant of God to
increase all types of rejoicing before the Sefer Torah, to caper and to dance wildly with fitting
songs and not be concerned about his own Torah honor, lest they mock him and he became
despised in the eyes of the masses. For even if he is a great one in Torah, still King David the
anointed one was much greater than he and even so when he brought the holy ark up to
Yerushalayim, he danced wildly with all his strength before God…

Chemdat Yamim writes that kevod ha-Torah should not constrain joyous dancing during
the hakafot – though in his description, the Torah itself is still treated carefully and held
specifically by the talmid chacham. This hierarchical mode of celebration is reminiscent
of Simchat Beit Ha-sho’eiva, at which the sages took the lead, though here the lay people do more
than just look on.

As the practice of hakafot spread, so did the variations on how to perform them. For example, Rav
Chayyim David Ha-levi Azulai, another major popularizer of the practice, had one person standing
still with a Torah at the bima for the whole time.[5]

Chida, Tziporen Shamir 12

First of all, they would place the Torah scroll on the teiva (bima) and a God fearing person
would remain by it with his hand holding the Sefer Torah for the whole time of
the hakafot [circuits]…

These sources describe people dancing in honor the Sifrei Torah, while they are supported at
the bima or held for dancing by prominent religious figures in the community.

Expanding the Celebration

45
Very recently, and most prominently in Ashkenazi communities with many scrolls (and lighter
scrolls, without heavy Sefardi casings), hakafot have expanded to allow for ordinary members of
the congregation to pass around the Torah and dance while holding it. Though this has become the
accepted practice in many communities, it does not align neatly with the halachot of kevod ha-
Torah or the earliest records of hakafot.

In fact, when this practice began to spread, in the late nineteenth century, the Rav in Bucharest
attempted to put a stop to it by taking the controversial step of having fewer Sifrei Torah brought
out of the aron kodesh at each service, even though doing so went against a custom recorded by
Rema:[6]

Responsa Simcha La-ish OC 4

He saw that the honorable people of substance were not carrying the Torah scrolls to make
circuits with them, but rather the masses and children. They did not treat them with kevod ha-
Torah in accordance with proper behavior. He saw fit to enact that they take out only seven
scrolls at night and seven scrolls during the day and seven scrolls at mincha …

This effort notwithstanding, the practice of passing the Torah around among the members of the
congregation has taken hold in many synagogues.

Women Celebrating the Torah

Women have celebrated Simchat Torah in a range of ways. Three main modes of celebration have
become prevalent: watching, dancing, and dancing with a Sefer Torah. There are also synagogues
in which women learn Torah together during at least part of the time of the hakafot.

Watching

In many synagogues, women watch the men dance, much as Rambam describes lay people
observing Simchat Beit Ha-sho’eiva. Jerusalem-based blogger Chana Jenny Weisberg writes about
how this can be especially fulfilling for a woman who devotes herself to enabling her husband and
children to study Torah.[7]

Chana Jenny Weisberg writes:18

We Jewish MOMs work so very, very hard the entire year enabling our children and our
husbands to go off and learn Torah and sometimes teach Torah. Some of us even make some
time in our crazy busy lives to learn and teach some Torah ourselves. We continue holding up
the Torah even when we don’t feel well, even when we are SO tired, even when it’s very difficult.
Because we know that is what being a Jewish MOM is all about. So this Simchat Torah, sitting
in my seat, watching my husband dance around and around with our 1-year-old on his
shoulders, our 4 and 6-year-olds clinging to his tallis, and our 9-year-old a few steps ahead, I

18
'How I Felt about Not Dancing on Simchat Torah,' Jewishmom.com

46
felt the intense pleasure of pure, unadulterated nachas. As I sat there, I felt Hashem whispering
in my ear, “Chana Jenny, you work so hard holding up my Torah all year long. Today is a gift
for you to just enjoy and rest and, in your heart, just today, dance with Me.”

For other women, and not only those who are unattached, looking on at the men's section is less
satisfying. These women long to express their love of and connection to Torah by dancing with
and kissing the Torah directly.

Batya Gold writes:19

Simchas Torah has always been a complicated day for me, and for most women I know. I have
wandered from shul to shul, trying to find a way of celebrating that feels right. Women are
supposed to feel vicarious participation by watching the men dance and sing. Yet as women enter
into a more direct relationship with Torah study, indirect participation on Simchas Torah no longer
works for many of them. Instead of reinforcing one’s bond to Torah, it creates alienation. Instead
of simcha, it creates pain.

Dancing

In some synagogues, women dance in the ezrat nashim, without a sefer Torah. One might think
that this is an innovative synagogue practice. Women's dancing for Simchat Torah, however, is
not entirely new.

The women of medieval Worms were accustomed to dance in honor of the Torah late on the
afternoon of Shemini Atzeret, just before Simchat Torah:

Rav Yosef Yozef Ha-levi, beadle of Worms in the 17th century, quoted in Ya'ari, p. 210

The custom of women between mincha and ma'ariv of that day [erev Simchat Torah]: they
come in their best, most beautiful, and most expensive clothes and enter the outer room of the
synagogue before the outer door of the women's synagogue. Most of the women, especially the
younger women, link hands, with the wives of the chatan Torah and chatan Bereishit taking
the lead, and they circle round and round and sing 'Yigdal' and songs that they usually sing in
honor of groom and bride…

Women's dancing on Simchat Torah is widely permitted, as a matter of giving honor to the Torah.
For example, Rav Avraham Yosef (son of Rav Ovadya and chief rabbi of Cholon) takes it as a
matter of course:[9]

Rav Avraham Yosef, 'Simchat Torah Le-nashim,' Moreshet.co.il, 5774

The simcha itself certainly is permitted [to women] including, of course, dancing and clapping.
The problem arises when they seek to dance with Torah scrolls…

19
(pseudonym), Dancing on the Edge, Jewish Action, Winter 1999[8]

47
Dancing with a Sefer Torah
Including a Sefer Torah in women's celebrations has been met with more reservations than dancing
without one. Here are some of the most commonly raised considerations regarding women dancing
with a Sefer Torah. Similar arguments apply to women's dancing with a Torah at a hachnasat Sefer
Torah celebration, when a new Torah scroll is brought to a synagogue or other institution.

I. The Nidda Custom In our previous installment, we discussed a custom among some women to
avoid attending synagogue or touching a Sefer Torah while menstruating. Even communities that
observe this custom waive it in cases where it would cause women "great anguish." In his
evaluation of women's dancing with a Sefer Torah on Simchat Torah in the mid 1970's,[10] Rav
Menachem M. Schneersohn reportedly questioned whether there was sufficient anguish on
Simchat Torah to override the custom in favor of having women dance with Torah scrolls.

Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson, letter to Rav Shlomo Riskin, 13 Kislev 1976 (from
translation)

…Another aspect of the problem, which although it is not connected specifically to Simchat
Torah and to the hakafot, is still directly connected to the question of what should be the
practical custom in this matter [women dancing with the Torah]. I mean the halacha brought
in Shulchan Aruch OC 88, which relates to women in certain circumstances [menstruation]
regarding visiting synagogue and the Sefer Torah, etc…"For it will be a great anguish for them
when everyone gathers but they stand outside." One should note that the question there deals
with entering the synagogue; even then, anguish is not enough [to permit it], but only 'great
anguish.' We see from this that in such matters, especially regarding the Sefer Torah, we have
no power or authority to create new customs… and certainly not to permit holding hakafot with
a Sefer Torah [for women].

48
Over the past forty years, anguish at not being able to dance with the Torah on Simchat Torah may
have developed for some women into "great anguish" of the sort that could override the custom
even where it is practiced. Greater availability of more effective menstrual hygiene products could
also affect the relevance of this custom.[11]

This custom is not obligatory to start with, and women today do come to synagogue when
menstruating. It is difficult to argue that women should not dance with a Torah on Simchat Torah
based on a custom that has fallen out of practice, and that can be overridden when necessary.

II. Kevod ha-Torah Another common reservation is that dancing with the Sefer Torah has gotten
out of hand among men, and that ideally only the scholars and leaders of the community should
be dancing with the Sifrei Torah, as was originally the case. If so, extending the wild celebrations
to women would only exacerbate the issue, expanding a practice that should be reined in.[12]

Rav Yaakov Ariel notes that not all synagogues include dancing with Torah scrolls as part of their
men's celebrations, and that such dancing can even lead to damage to the scrolls.[13]

Rav Ya'akov Ariel, Halacha Be-yameinu, pp. 252-3

It is not known what the source of the men’s is custom to dance with the Torah scrolls. The
original custom was to dance around the Torah scrolls placed on
the bima…Dancing with Torah scrolls is greatly problematic. It causes levity towards the
scrolls. It is one of the reasons that scrolls become invalid [damaged or torn so they cannot be
used for public readings]…Why, then, are women interested in practicing specifically a custom
which already has objectors?...If women indeed wish to rejoice truly on Simchat Torah, I
suggest to them that they do this on their own, in their own atmosphere and their own location.
There they can rejoice and dance, around the Torah, as in the original custom, and not with the
Torah…

Rav Ariel believes that his suggestion of having women dance around a Torah scroll set down in
the middle of the circle could address concerns about kevod ha-Torah.[14]

Taking a similar but more optimistic approach, Rav Nahum Rabinovich sees women's hakafot,
with women dancing around a distinguished woman holding the Torah, as an opportunity to
refocus a community's relationship to hakafot, with an eye to kevod ha-Torah.[15]

Rav Nahum Rabinovich, Responsa Siach Nachum 40

It seems, in my humble opinion, that if the congregation wants to implement a practice that will
provide gratification to women [Chagiga 16b] on Simchat Torah, and thus establish that in the
women's section one of the prominent women holds the Torah, and others dance before her in
a manner of honor and glory [to the Torah]—certainly there is a rectification here, one that
involves no prohibition whatsoever, for it was never prohibited for women to hold a Sefer Torah.
Perhaps even the men will learn from this to act with appropriate respect.

49
A discussion about whether and how to institute women’s hakafot offers an ideal opportunity for
a community to consider how their Simchat Torah practices can best honor the Torah, the
synagogue, and Yom Tov. In this context, it may be entirely appropriate for respectful dancing
with the Torah to include women as well as men. Communities of women may also develop new
variations on this custom, or revive old ones, possibly inspiring the men to do the same.

III. Synagogue Custom A third consideration, one that Rav Schneerson pointed to as well, is that
this practice is an innovation.

Rav Herschel Schachter makes this case (among others) in a piece co-signed by a number of
prominent Yeshiva University Roshei Yeshiva, and reporting opposition by Rav Soloveitchik and
Rav Moshe Feinstein to hakafot and women's tefilla groups:[16]

Rav Herschel Schachter, Be-ikvei Ha-tzon 5, p. 32

This [women's hakafot and women's tefillot] involves the problem of a clear and very
pronounced change from the tradition of our forefathers, and the problem of breaching
boundaries of Jewish custom and separating from the ways of the community. Specifically, there
is unique [halachic] meticulousness regarding synagogue customs… After study and considered
discussion in a group of some of the Rabbis of the Yeshiva, it seems clear that all of these
practices [women's hakafot and women's tefilla groups] are prohibited…Especially
[regarding] the matter of synagogue custom, the later authorities were very stringent…For its
[the synagogue's] status is that of a lesser mikdash…

It is unclear if the strong language here would have been employed the same way had the matter
of women dancing with a Sefer Torah been raised separately from women's tefilla groups. In any
case, innovative practice is especially thorny in the synagogue. It is perhaps along these lines that
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein reportedly differentiated between synagogues and other settings:[17]

Rav Ze'ev Weitman, 'Hakafot Simchat Torah for Women,' Letter to Alon Shevut Community,
Tishrei 5788.

Rav [Yosef Zvi] Rimon himself says that, following consultation with Rav Lichtenstein, he
permitted dancing with a sefer Torah at a girls’ midrasha [seminary]. But according to him, Rav
Lichtenstein permitted this only in a seminary, because from a halachic perspective it is
permissible but it is not suitable or proper for a community synagogue.

Rav Lichtenstein may have felt that the customs of a synagogue have more weight than other
venues. His reported position is not that the act is prohibited in synagogue, but that it is
inappropriate there because it is not customary.[18]

The argument about protecting synagogue practice is particularly interesting given that
the hakafot themselves are a relatively recent innovation in most communities, and that their
practice continues to evolve. For example, after the fact, Rav Ya'akov Elyashar gave his
approbation to the change in custom in Bucharest to taking out only a portion of the scrolls at each
set of hakafot:[19]

50
Simcha La-ish OC 4

For the enactment was already made… and the entire congregation accepted and agreed on this
enactment with good will, and the enactor’s intention was to honor the Torah, it is not fitting to
go back and change the enactment that they should go back to their original custom after the
deed was already done with the agreement of all the congregation. Granted, if they had asked
and looked into it before acting, we would have said not to change their custom. But after they
already acted for a year or two with agreement, we should strengthen the hand of the enactor
and anyone who complains about them for the sake of custom is acting inappropriately…

Rav Elyashar argues that a new Simchat Torah custom that contravenes a relatively older custom
can become accepted. The case of women dancing might even be easier to accept because it
doesn’t uproot a prior custom, but adds a new one.

The more permissive opinion of Rav Rabinovich also emphasizes the importance of custom and
of care in addressing this matter:[20]

Rav Nahum Rabinovich, Responsa Siach Nachum 40

There is no prohibition against women dancing with a Sefer Torah, on condition that they treat
it with appropriate respect. But on the other hand, one should not change a synagogue's custom
without the agreement of a majority of the congregation. In most congregations, women did not
have the custom of dancing with the Sefer Torah on Simchat Torah, and if they want to change
the custom they need to ask the community for their opinion. Of course, if there is a Rav of the
community, nothing should be done without his agreement.

It is important to note that Rav Rabinovich's responsum was addressed to a community in which
there was serious internal opposition to women dancing with a Sefer Torah. It is possible that he
would have taken a less hesitant tone with a different community.

IV. Increasing Simcha Yom Tov should be a day of joy for the entire community. We have seen
the words of Chemdat Yamim that “one who increases all types of rejoicing before the Sefer
Torah arouses rejoicing above.” Eliya Rabba adds that we should enable everyone to rejoice as
much as possible:

Eliya Rabba 669

One should cause the masses to rejoice in the joy of the mitzva in whatever way is possible [on
Simchat Torah].

The Talmud teaches us of the halachic importance of nachat ru'ach le-nashim, gratifying
women.[21] In considering the question of women dancing with a Sefer Torah, the potential
positive impact on the community should also be taken into consideration.

51
Concluding Thoughts

Based on some or all of the first three considerations above, a number of halachic authorities have
either prohibited or expressed reservations about women dancing with Sifrei Torah on Simchat
Torah. Many specific communities, however, find these reservations surmountable and do have
dancing for women with a Sefer Torah in order to increase the simcha.

This is not a cut and dried halachic discussion. Consequently, how women of a given community
should celebrate Simchat Torah is a communal issue, that communities may resolve in a range of
ways. Regardless of what conclusion is reached, all of us stand to benefit from learning more about
the hakafot, from refreshing our acquaintance with the laws of kevod ha-Torah, and from seeking
to enhance our simchat Torah on Simchat Torah.

Why is this such a big deal?

The symbolism of the Sefer Torah is at the heart of this issue. From the start, when Rambam
extends rulings about thinking about Torah to the physical scroll, we learn that the Sefer Torah,
beyond its own holiness, represents Torah itself.

For a woman to be close to a Sefer Torah can be meaningful to her because it symbolizes being
close to Torah. Many women have little to no contact with a Sefer Torah over the course of the
year and feel that distance most strongly on Simchat Torah.

For men to hand over a Sefer Torah to women during hakafot may feel like relinquishing something
exceedingly precious. When men don't hand over a Sefer Torah so that women can rejoice over it,
it can give rise to a sense among some women that men are controlling access to Torah. This can
be particularly painful to women who engage in Torah study regularly, whose access to the words
of Torah is deeply meaningful and who may long for access to the physical scroll as well. Other
women may feel uncomfortable with the idea of holding a Sefer Torah.

Even if a Torah is not handed to the women in a shul, a synagogue community and its leadership
should carefully consider how still to convey the message that they respect and value women's
portion in and engagement with Torah. To this end, they might consider designating a specific
woman to hold the Torah or placing it on a table in the women’s section, as Rav Ya'akov Ariel
suggested, to ensure kevod ha-Torah is maintained while providing an opportunity for women to
rejoice with the scroll.

Deracheha Editor-at-large Sarah Rudolph presents her take on what it means for women to dance
as an expression of women’s joy and portion in Torah, even without a scroll: [22]

Sarah Rudolph writes:20

…Holding the scroll, that, to my mind, is secondary. The real point is that we have an equal
right to rejoice in our sacred heritage. Nobody is making us chat; ultimately, no one is stopping

20
"Simchat Torah Doesn't Have to be a Men's Holiday”

52
us from dancing. If it’s a men’s holiday, that is because we let it be….On Simchat Torah, I
dance for the concept of Torah, not the object. I dance for myself and my love of Torah study. I
dance for the joy of the completed cycle of reading, and I dance for the joy of beginning all over
again. I dance because I will shortly have tears in my eyes, like I do every year, as I listen to the
account of Moses’ death in the last few verses of the Torah. I dance because I will shortly be
awed, as I am every year, when we begin again and read, “And it was evening, and it was
morning, one day.” The very beginning of everything; something, where there had been
nothing.

This being said, we should still be sensitive to the fact that many women have a difficult time
navigating feelings of disenfranchisement, especially on Simchat Torah, when the Torah scrolls
remain in the men's section. These feelings can be especially strong among women who are
deeply involved and invested in Torah.

We need to engage in education and dialogue to bring us to a point where every Jewish woman
can give expression to her love of Torah on Simchat Torah and where our communities make
it clear that they celebrate women's connection to Torah.

Further Reading
Rabinovich, Rav Nahum. Responsa Si'ach Nachum, Siman 40.Rudolph, Sarah Davis, "Simchas Torah and
Women," Torahmusings.com, 2017. Available here: https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/10/simchas-torah-
women/?fbclid=IwAR1KgEgdzcS_77sppDs_hO6wlYLr3Q1mdTkRzTilhCfsAS66lwQH4sITdSA
Student, Rav Gil, "Women Dancing with Torah Scrolls," Torahmusings.com, 2014. Available
here: https://www.torahmusings.com/2014/10/women-torah-scrolls/
Weitman, Rav Ze'ev, "Hakafot Simchat Torah for Women." Letter to Alon Shevut Community, Tishrei 5788. Available
here: https://www.alonshvut.org.il/objDoc.asp?PID=623590&OID=623608
Ya’ari, Avraham. Toldot Chag Simchat Torah. Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-rav Kook, 19. (Originally published 1964).

[1] After citing the Ge’onim, Maharik makes this point. In contrast, customs which entailed Torah-level prohibitions were not
waived for honoring the Torah.
Shu”t Maharik 9
“Here, a minhag [custom] done in honor of the Torah overrides even a shevut (rabbinic prohibition), namely, dancing on Yom
Tov.”
[2] In Eretz Yisrael, Shemini Atzeret is observed for only one day. Furthermore, the custom in Eretz Yisrael was to complete the
reading of the Torah only about every three years, so there was no annual celebration of its completion.
[3] Although his practice was originally to dance on the night following Simchat Torah, rather than on Yom Tov itself. See Ya'ari,
pp. 266-270.
[4] Although Chemdat Yamim was a very influential work, it was also alleged to be Sabbatean. Available
here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49706&st=&pgnum=508
[5] Available here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34732&st=&pgnum=37
[6] Available here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=466&st=&pgnum=18
[7] Available here: http://jewishmom.com/2016/10/25/how-i-felt-about-not-dancing-on-simchat-torah/
[8] Available here: https://jewishaction.com/opinion/dancing-edge/
[9] Available here: http://shut.moreshet.co.il/shut2.asp?id=166467
[10] We are still attempting to obtain a copy of the original letter to share here.
The Hebrew translation of the letter from which we prepared this translation is available
here: http://www.haoros.com/Archive/index.asp?cat=11&haoro=7&kovetz=902#ftn37
[11] This case differs from that of "guf naki" regarding tefillin, which may not refer to menstruation at all and which is a halachic
obligation (not a mere stringency) because tefillin are worn on the body. See our article on guf naki here: deracheha.org/tefillin-2-
guf-naki
[12] Available here: https://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/1197

53
[13] Ariel, Rav Ya’akov, Halacha Be-yameinu (Ashkelon: Machon Ha-Torah Ve-ha-aretz, 2010).
[14] This suggestion could also address the concern about the nidda custom, in communities for which that is relevant.
[15] Available here: http://www.ybm.org.il/Admin/uploaddata/LessonsFiles/Pdf/9592.pdf
[16] In Mi-pninei Ha-Rav (below), he quotes Rav Soloveitchik as making this assertion in extreme terms, though Rav
Soloveitchik's approach was debated (as was Rav Moshe's position):
Rav Y. B. Soloveitchik, quoted in Rav Herschel Shachter, Mi-pninei Ha-Rav, p. 142
It [women dancing with the Torah on Simchat Torah] is in total opposition to our entire tradition.
[17]Available here: https://www.alonshvut.org.il/objDoc.asp?PID=623590&OID=623608
[18] See also Frimer and Frimer, “Women's Prayer Services Theory and Practice,” Tradition 32:2 (Winter 1998): 5-118, note 213,
which reports that Rav Lichtenstein, on a theoretical level, "also maintained that women dancing with
the Sefer Torah on Simhat Torah was halakhically permitted." Available
here: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer3.htm
[19] Available here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=466&st=&pgnum=21
[20] Available here: http://www.ybm.org.il/Admin/uploaddata/LessonsFiles/Pdf/9592.pdf
[21] Chagiga 16b
Rabbi Yosei said: Abba Elazar told me: Once, we had a calf for a shelamim [peace] offering, and we brought it to the women’s
courtyard, and the women leaned on it. Not because leaning on a sacrifice applies to women, but in order to give gratification to
the women [nachat ru’ach la-nashim].
[22]Available here: https://www.kveller.com/simchat-torah-doesnt-have-to-be-a-mens-holiday/

Permission to Forbid: New Gezeirot in the History of Halakhah

Aryeh Klapper writes:21

Imagine if a new technology enabled all 39 melakhot to be done on Shabbat without violating any
existing halakhic prohibition. How should our poskim respond?

Discussions of halakhic innovation often revolve around an asserted need for new leniencies. But
it stands to reason that changed circumstances will require just as many new stringencies, and that

21
https://www.thelehrhaus.com/talmud-and-halakhah/permission-to-forbid-new-gezeirot-in-the-history-of-halakhah/

54
the authority to make changes must apply both ways. If today’s halakhists are judged incompetent
to issue new stringencies, they are unlikely to succeed in implementing new leniencies.

Rabbinic gezeirot function to “build a protective fence”[1] around the Torah by forbidding actions
that might lead to violations of Torah prohibitions. New circumstances yield new threats and
require new gezeirot. However, in Yabia Omer 1:16, Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l writes, “It is well
known that our teachers the rishonim and aharonim have stated broadly that we may not
decree gezeirot based on our own judgment.” Rav Ovadiah cites six sources to directly substantiate
this principle. My purpose here is to reopen the discussion based on an analysis of those sources
and to compare Rav Ovadiah’s approach with that of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.

Rav Ovadiah addresses the issue of whether to forbid reading by the light of an electric lamp on
Shabbat. The Mishnah (Shabbat 11a) teaches that one may not read by the light of an oil lamp.
The Talmud explains (Shabbat 12b) that the concern is lest one violate the prohibition against
kindling by tilting the lamp to improve its draw. This concern plainly does not apply to electric
lamps. Therefore, the gezeirah does not apply to reading under electric lamps, just as reading by
the light of fireplaces is permitted. However, because electric lamps can be turned off very easily,
one can argue plausibly that reading by them should be forbidden, and that the Talmudic
rabbis would have forbidden this had such lights existed in their time.

Rav Ovadiah’s first source regarding the appropriateness of new gezeirot is a responsum of Rabbi
Israel Bruna (Shu”t Mahari Bruna #108), one of the leading poskim of fifteenth-century Germany.
Mahari Bruna discusses whether a woman who immerses while wearing a loose ring on her finger
is permitted to resume intimacy with her husband. Immersion is valid only if the water can reach
all the woman’s skin, and the concern is that if we permit loose rings, women will come to wear
tight rings that obstruct the water’s access. He notes that Ramban and Rashba disagreed about
whether halakhah requires removal of a loose ring in advance (lekhathilah) of immersion, but he
asserts that “after the fact (bediavad), no one disputes that from the day that the Talmud was sealed,
no gezeirah was initiated that we do not find in the Talmud, as Rabbeinu Asher (Rosh) wrote
in Shabbat Chapter 2 regarding the ‘convulsion of the Geonim.’” Because the Talmud did not ban
immersion with a loose ring, Mahari Bruna rules that the woman is permitted to resume intimacy
with her husband.

Yet I am puzzled by Rav Ovadiah’s citation of this responsum with regard to electric lamps. A
decree against reading by electric lamps declares that something should not be done; it does not
invalidate something that has been done. It is therefore parallel to a decree against immersing while
wearing a loose ring. Since Mahari Bruna is open to prohibiting women from immersing with
loose rings, even though the Talmud did not, he should therefore also be open to prohibiting
reading by electric light.

Mahari Bruna’s distinction between an initial decree (lekhathilah) and invalidating a ritual after
the fact (bediavad) also seems inconsistent with the Rosh he cites as support, which is also Rav
Ovadiah’s second source.

55
Rosh (to Shabbat 2:15) cites the Geonim as follows: “We do not practice saying
[a berakhah specific for fast days] in the evening [amidah], or even in the morning [amidah], lest
he be seized by illness or convulsion and eat something, making it turn out that he was a liar in his
prayer.” Rosh responds: “I am astonished: How could the Geonim initiate a gezeirah after Rav
Ashi sealed the Talmud?!” The issue here is lekhathilah – should one or shouldn’t one say
the berakhah? This is parallel to forbidding immersion while wearing a loose ring, and it
is not parallel to invalidating an immersion after the fact. The Geonim presumably did not decree
that one who says the berakhah must repeat the amidah. I am therefore at a loss to explain why
Mahari Bruna cites Rosh as supporting his claim that post-Talmudic rabbis are restricted only from
making bediavad decrees.

Regardless, Rosh seems to support Rav Ovadiah’s principle by stating an absolute rule against
new decrees, albeit implicitly conceding that the Geonim rejected this rule. However, we can
interpret Rosh’s rule more narrowly. Rosh and Mahari Bruna both deal with decrees that apply to
situations already considered by the Talmud. The question before them is whether to initiate a
prohibition when, facing the same circumstances, the Rabbis of the Talmud chose not to prohibit.
Rosh’s rule may therefore be irrelevant to the issue of whether post-Talmudic authorities can make
decrees in response to entirely new circumstances, such as electric lamps.

This distinction between precedented and unprecedented circumstances emerges clearly from Rav
Ovadiah’s third source, Radbaz’s commentary Yikar Tiferet to Rambam (Hilkhot Terumot 1:22).
Radbaz discusses a dispute between Rambam and Raavad as to whether grains grown outside the
Land of Israel become rabbinically obligated in terumot and ma’asrot when brought to Israel.
Radbaz explains that Rambam held that “we should not initiate gezeirot based on our own
judgment, since [such a decree] is not mentioned anywhere. Indeed, in the Yerushalmi they
discussed this Mishnah at great length and never mentioned [the possibility] that [these grains]
would be rabbinically obligated!” Radbaz explicitly frames Rambam’s argument against such a
decree in terms of acting where our predecessors chose not to.

Rav Ovadiah’s fourth source, Maggid Mishneh (to Hilkhot Hametz u-Matzah 5:20), similarly
addresses whether later rabbis can make new decrees when addressing the same circumstances as
their predecessors. He understands Rambam as permitting the baking of matzot with oil or wine or
honey added to the dough, because the combination does not rise faster than a dough with only
water in it. Raavad limits this permission to zerizim (people eager to fulfill mitzvot punctiliously),
but he forbids it to ordinary folks. Maggid Mishneh responds on behalf of Rambam: “But I say:
We may not decree gezeirot based on our own judgment.” People certainly considered baking with
these additives in the time of the Talmud.

Similarly, Rav Ovadiah’s fifth source, again from Radbaz (Shu”t Radbaz 1:149), also addresses a
case of unchanged circumstances. Radbaz there considers whether a woman who experiences
a hargashah (sensation associated with becoming niddah), but then inspects herself and finds no
blood, should be considered a niddah under Rabbinic law. He responds that “we should not
initiate gezeirot based on our own judgement in circumstances where our predecessors did not
decree.” The phenomenon of hargashah without finding blood of course also existed in Talmudic
times.

56
Note that Radbaz and Maggid Mishneh each introduce the rule against new gezeirot to explain
why Rambam permits where Raavad forbids. This suggests that Raavad (like the Geonim cited by
Rosh above) may not agree with even our narrow understanding of the rule, and he might permit
making new gezeirot even when circumstances have not changed significantly.[2]

However, Rav Ovadiah’s sixth source, Rabbeinu Nissim [Ran] (cited in Shu”t HaRivash #390), at
first glance supports the claim that we cannot make new decrees even in response to new
circumstances. Ran responds to a rabbi’s request that he ban a community’s practice of announcing
real estate sales at Shabbat davening. These announcements served the public policy purpose of
establishing a presumption of legitimate ownership (if no one came forward to contest the sale).
This public good certainly suffices to override the general prohibition against speaking of business
matters on Shabbat. Ran notes, however, that the Mishnah (Beitzah 36b) forbids batei
din (halakhic courts) from adjudicating on Shabbat even in cases of public need, lest they come to
write. Shouldn’t the same consideration forbid this practice? Ran responds that we should not
extend that prohibition to this case “because we only have those [gezeirot] listed by Chazal, and
we should not originate gezeirot on our own.” Here is a new practice, and yet Ran rules out making
a new gezeirah.[3]

Yet the key phrase here is “those [gezeirot] listed by Chazal.” To what list is Ran referring?
Rabbinic literature contains no comprehensive list of gezeirot that we can check to see if it includes
a decree against announcing real estate sales on Shabbat. Rather, Ran must be referring to the
Mishnah in Beitzah (36b), which includes a list of activities prohibited on Shabbat and Yom Tov
despite their being “something of a mitzvah” (reshut),[4] among them the convening of a beit din.
The Talmud (ibid 37a) identifies writing as the concern behind the prohibition. Ran explicitly
classifies these announcements as reshut. His argument against banning these announcements is
that the Mishnah intended its list to be exhaustive, and therefore with regard to the specific question
of banning a reshut that might lead to writing, “we only have those [gezeirot] listed by Chazal.”
This argument has no relevance to a general rule against new decrees.

Thus, none of Rav Ovadiah’s six sources explicitly supports a rule against initiating
new gezeirot in unprecedented circumstances, and several of them implicitly acknowledge that the
Geonim and Raavad allowed new gezeirot even in precedented circumstances. Nevertheless, a
broader restriction against new prohibitions may have developed after Radbaz. Such a
development may be revealed in the many sources that Rav Ovadiah cites later in his responsum.
Moreover, there may be practical reasons making such decrees impossible today. For example,
making gezeirot might require a degree of public acknowledgement and deference that is not given
to any contemporary halakhist or group of halakhists.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC 4:50) also addresses the question of whether
new gezeirot are possible in response to new circumstances. His concern is not electric lamps, but
rather the potential of electric timers to completely transform the Shabbat experience: “It is
obviously forbidden to permit this, because via such timers one could do all the forbidden
categories of labor on Shabbat, and [run] all factories, and there could be no greater devaluation
of Shabbat.” Rav Moshe adds, “It’s clear that had this device existed in the times of
the Tannaim and Amoraim, they would have forbidden this.”

57
Rav Moshe is less certain “that we cannot forbid what the Sages did not forbid, and that one may
not derive further prohibitions from their decrees, even against things that are rationally more
stringent.” Even if we cannot, he insists that anything not prohibited by Hazal, “even though this
was because the case didn’t exist in their time, and thus there is no actual prohibition, nonetheless
one should not permit it, since it is something that it would be appropriate to forbid.” The
circumlocutions in this responsum are striking and astonishing: “forbidden to permit,”
“appropriate to forbid,” and so forth. Clearly, Rav Moshe felt that something goes seriously awry
when halakhah cannot effectively rebuild its fences in response to new circumstances.[5]

The authority to issue new permissions or create new obligations is not necessarily subject to the
same rules as the authority to forbid. One can construct a theoretical system[6] that gives
contemporary halakhists the authority to make new decrees freeing agunot without simultaneously
enabling them to ban putting televisions on Shabbat timers. Maybe that authority could also enable
regulating publicly owned corporations and responding effectively to the existence of a Jewish
state. But it seems far more intuitive to connect the issues practically, and even to claim that
permitting what would otherwise be forbidden requires more authority than forbidding what would
otherwise be permitted. Therefore, advocates for creative halakhic legislation should recognize
that the authority to issue new decrees will almost certainly go both ways, and that generating the
authority to permit may require granting the authority to forbid. My hope is that this essay opens
space for serious discussion of the extent to which we wish to grant that authority.

[1] See, e.g., Mishnah Avot 1:1.

[2] Raavad generally sees himself as continuing Geonic tradition, so this historical conjunction would not be surprising.

[3] Real estate sales existed in the time of Hazal, and therefore one might argue that here as well Hazal chose not to ban announcing
them, so Ran also is not relevant to the question of new technologies. But since the practice of announcing them did not exist, this
seems to me an overreach.

[4] The Mishnah uses the term reshut, which Rashi here defines as ketzat mitzvah (“something of a mitzvah”).

[5] The validity of Rav Moshe’s discomfort is independent of the question of whether one shares his intuition about the negative
implications of timers for the Shabbat experience.

[6] For example, by distinguishing between gezeirot and takkanot.

58