Custom thrives not in spaces of black or white, but in the gray areas, the loci of liminality in our lives. The Talmud continues to probe these spaces: what happens as we transition from the holiness of Shabbat/Chag to the profanity of the week? What was dreamed up in the waning moments of Creation? On which topics do we know enough about to conjecture, but never to ascertain?
Members of the Kollel dove deeply into into the uncertainty of speculation, and the uncomfortable decisions intellectual and legal arbitration forces upon us. Their responses speak to what it means to be a human being in a world of questions and doubts, and how we keep going despite it all.
Click here to learn more about this commentary and the Kreuzberg Kollel.
Rav Yosef read the following verse about this event: “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out” (Proverbs 20:5). Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; that is a reference to Ulla, who had a thought but did not articulate it. But a man of understanding will draw it out; that is a reference to Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who understood the allusion even though it was not articulated.
And in accordance with whose opinion do Ulla and Rabba bar bar Ḥana hold, leading them to reject Rabbi Abba’s statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion? They hold in accordance with that which Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing over fire both at the conclusion of Shabbat and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. And that is how the people act.
The Gemara raises an objection from that which was previously taught: One recites a blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat and not at the conclusion of Festivals or Yom Kippur, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. And once one sees it, they recites the blessing immediately. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not recite the blessing immediately; rather, they wait and arrange and recite the blessings over fire and spices over the cup of wine that accompanies the recitation of havdala. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. How could Rabbi Yoĥanan explain this contradicting tradition?
La Kashya - This is not difficult! Here, where Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one recites the blessing at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, it is referring to Or Sheshavat - fire that rested on Yom Kippur, i.e., fire for which no prohibition was involved in its kindling, because it was kindled before Yom Kippur. There, where Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the blessing is recited only at the conclusion of Shabbat, it is referring to fire generated from wood and from stones after Shabbat, similar to the primordial fire, which was created at the conclusion of Shabbat.
תני חדא אור היוצא מן העצים ומן האבנים מברכין עליו ותני חדא אין מברכין עליו לא קשיא כאן במוצאי שבת כאן במוצאי יום הכפורים
רבי מפזרן רבי חייא מכנסן אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אף על פי שרבי מפזרן חוזר וסודרן על הכוס כדי להוציא בניו ובני ביתו
Was fire created at the conclusion of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten miraculous phenomena were created in heaven on Shabbat eve during twilight, and were revealed in the world only later? They were: Miriam’s well, and the manna that fell in the desert, and the rainbow, writing [ketav], and the writing instrument [mikhtav], and the tablets of the Ten Commandments, and the grave of Moses, and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the mouth of Balaam’s donkey, and the opening of the earth’s mouth to swallow the wicked in the incident involving Korah.
Rabbi Neḥemya said in the name of his father: Even the fire and the mule, which is a product of crossbreeding, were created at that time. Rabbi Yoshiya said in the name of his father: Even the ram slaughtered by Abraham in place of Isaac, and the shamir worm used to shape the stones for the altar, were created at that time. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the tongs were created at this time. He would say: Tongs can be fashioned only with other tongs, but who fashioned the first tongs? Indeed, the first pair of tongs was fashioned at the hand of Heaven. An anonymous questioner said to him: It is possible to fashion tongs with a mold and align it without the need for other tongs. Indeed, the first tongs were a creation of man.
This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to our fire, and that baraita is referring to the fire of Gehenna. The Gemara explains: Our fire was created at the conclusion of Shabbat, but the fire of Gehenna was created on Shabbat eve.
But was the fire of Gehenna created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of Messiah.
[How do we know all this?] Torah was created before the world was created, as it is written: “The Lord made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22), which, based on the subsequent verses, is referring to the Torah. Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God,” and it is written immediately afterward: “You return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man” (Psalms 90:2–3). The Garden of Eden was created before the world was created, as it is written: “And God planted the Garden of Eden in the east [mikedem]” (Genesis 2:8). The term: In the east [mikedem] is interpreted in the sense of: Before [mikodem], i.e., before the world was created. Gehenna was created before the world was created, as it is written: “For its hearth is ordained of old” (Isaiah 30:33). The hearth, i.e., Gehenna, was created before the world was created. The Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Sanctuary” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written in the chapter discussing the Messiah: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17).
They say in answer: The void of Gehenna was created before the world, but its fire was created on Shabbat eve.
אמרי חללה הוא דנברא קודם שנברא העולם ואור דידיה בערב שבת ואור דידיה בערב שבת איברי והתניא רבי יוסי אומר אור שברא הקדוש ברוך הוא בשני בשבת אין לו כבייה לעולם שנאמר ויצאו וראו בפגרי האנשים הפושעים בי כי תולעתם לא תמות ואשם לא תכבה ואמר רבי בנאה בריה דרבי עולא מפני מה לא נאמר כי טוב בשני בשבת מפני שנברא בו אור של גיהנם ואמר רבי אלעזר אף על פי שלא נאמר בו כי טוב חזר וכללו בששי שנאמר וירא אלהים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד
The void of Gehenna was created before the world, but its fire was created on Shabbat eve.
And was its fire created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The fire that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the second day of the week will never be extinguished, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, nor will their fire be extinguished; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24)? And Rabbi Bana’a, son of Rabbi Ulla, said: Why doesn’t the verse state: That it was good, at the end of the second day of the week of Creation, as it does on the other days? It is because on that day the fire of Gehenna was created. And Rabbi Elazar said that even though: That it was good, was not stated with regard to the creations of the second day, He later included it on the sixth day, as it is stated: “And God saw all that He had done and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).
Before the Creation
Arnold Dreyblatt
We start our discussion with the first sentence in Pesachim 54a:14: “The void of Gehenna was created before the world, but its fire was created on Shabbat eve.” What is this Gehenna, which is sometimes a fire and sometimes a void? How can it be that it was created before the creation of the world?
As Rabbi Akiva explains in Chagigah 15a:9 “Everything has its opposite: He created the righteous,He created the wicked; He created the Garden of Eden, He created Gehenna...Each and every person has two portions, one in the Garden of Eden and one in Gehenna....”
The Gehenna in varying contexts is a kind of hell, a negative contrast to a positive, an eternal fire, a site of child sacrifice, and certainly not the eternal flame that we know from the synagogue today, which has memorial connotations.
We read further: “And was its fire created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it… …taught that: The fire that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the second day of the week will never be extinguished…” The text then continues in questioning the difference between this fire and the other fires (“our fires”) which we use in everyday life – for cooking and for heating:
“This baraita is referring to our fire, and that baraita is referring to the fire of Gehenna.”
“The Gemara proceeds to ask: Was the fire of Gehenna created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna…”
We are now faced with questions which seem unanswerable, even dangerous – pondering a time before the world was even created! What is meant here by “the world”? Can anything exist before the world was created? The discussion continues: “Rather, the void of Gehenna was created before the world was created, and its fire was created only on the second day of the week.”
Perhaps this fire, “our fire”, which we use in our daily life, is derived from the void which existed “before the world was created”. A spark, an ignition formed the big fire, (a big bang?) and we just keep passing the flame. This might coincide with modern Physics and Astronomy. But we still might ask ourselves, how can something exist before the world was created, much less something which is a “thing” in a time of void and nothingness, out of which creation took place? Moreover, if God is the force which creates, does God exist before the creation, or is God a part of what is created? Did God create himself? These are the questions which continue to be triggered by our first provocative sentence.
The Rambam address the issue in the “Guide for the Perplexed”, Part 2, 13:4:
“We consider time a thing created: it comes into existence in the same manner as other accidents, and the substances which form the substratum for the accidents. For this reason, viz., because time belongs to the things created, it cannot be said that God produced the Universe in the beginning… … If you admit the existence of time before the Creation, you will be compelled to accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe…”
But what’s wrong with that? Does the eternity of the universe pose problems for our understanding of God? Perhaps we need to begin at the beginning, in order to ask if there was a beginning before the beginning. We can go our first source, the Torah, which has a beginning: “In the beginning…” Rashi explains the difficulties in understanding and translating this first phrase: “At the beginning of everything He created these, admitting therefore that the word בראשית is in the construct state,” and further that “Therefore you must needs admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of Creation.”
This indicates the beginning of the process of God creating the world, which one could interpret as a continual process. The Torah thereby allows infinite possibility, as if the whole Torah is created in this sentence. However, this reading mainly concerns the “after” and the order of the “after(s)”, but not the “before.” In Vayikra Rabbah 29 it is written “that [man's creation] rose in thought; in the second, [God] consulted with the angels; in the third, He gathered his dirt; in the fourth, He kneaded.” We read elsewhere that the creation began with an utterance, with a word, but here it begins at first in “thought”. For creation to arise in thought, there must be a being which “thinks” a world into existence, a being who already exists. But our exploration of this tangent leads again to dangerous directions, which the sages certainly acknowledged.
In a Midrash in the “Bereishit Rabbah” it is written: “When a king builds a palace in a place of sewers, dunghills, and garbage, everyone who says: “This palace is built on sewers, dunghills, and garbage” discredits it. So too, everyone who says the universe was created from nothingness discredits it. Rabbi Hunna in the name of Bar Kafra said: If it were not written, it would be impossible to say it. “In the beginning God created” from what? “And the earth was empty.” So perhaps it would discredit our conception of the almighty God to imagine a world of nothingness, of void, from which the World arose. But in this void, God also must exist, for can we imagine a world without God?
A further midrash from “Bereishit Rabbah” counters: “A philosopher once asked Rabbah Gamliel and said to him, “Your God is only a great artist because he found great materials that helped him: tohu and vohu, darkness, spirit, water, and the depths.” Rabbi Gamliel responded to him: “Your spirit should blow! Regarding all of them, the term “creation” is written: tohu and vohu, as it says (Isaiah 45:7), “He makes peace and creates evil;” darkness, “He fashions light and creates darkness.”
Our understanding of the void, of nothingness can only exist together with an opposite, a “thingness”, a light, a world.
Another Midrash continues: Rabbi Yonah said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Why was the world created with a “Bet / ב”? Just as a Bet is closed on all sides and open in the front, so you are not permitted to say, “What is beneath? What is above? What came before? What will come after? Rather from the day the world was created and after. Bar Kappara said: “You have but to inquire about bygone ages that came before you [ever since God created humanity on earth]” (Deuteronomy 4:32).
The ”Bet” is open to the front, to the future, to possibility. But it is closed in the back. We look back in time to the great sages, but we consider only from the time when humanity has been created. Again we are directed away from the question. We cannot escape an object-subject relation – what is created and who created it, in a “before” and an “after”…
The Rabbis were concerned: “From the moment God created them you may speculate, however you may not speculate on what was before that. [“From one end of Heaven to the other”] on this you may speculate and investigate, but you may not speculate and investigate on what was before” (Bereishit Rabbah 1:10).
The Jewish tradition is human oriented, as it concerns itself mainly with inter-human relations as well as relations with God. Perhaps the Rabbis fear a form of idolatry in a non-anthropomorphic God, a Pantheistic God which might include the negation of nothingness, of the void. The fire and void of Gehenna is something to be afraid of.
Yet there are other texts. Joseph Alba, in his “Sefer HaIkkarim” (Maamar 2, Chapter 19) tackles just such a problem: “Now it is clearly absurd to suppose that the work of God comes from Him as from the first kind of agent, for a natural agent is not separated from the act. Thus light is not separated from the lamp, heat is not separated from fire, but God is something different from the act. Moreover, a natural agent is defective, doing a thing not with consciousness and understanding, but by necessity, when there is a recipient ready at hand… …But God can not have any defect, therefore His activity can not be of this kind.”
So this God cannot be a before and an after, a cause and an effect. But we have been discussing a time (before and after) as well as an object/subject relation at the same time. But what about the place where this all occurred. This all seems to happen somewhere, perhaps outside of the world, which hasn’t been created yet. Or the place where God was, when the world was created. Was that our world? Or did he remain outside it. Furthermore, we started this discussion with a void, the void of Gehanna, is this a place? Was God somewhere? And where was he?
Alba continues: “Place” (Heb. makom) is a term applied to the thing which surrounds bodies and bounds them. An incorporeal thing can not be said to be in place, because the name place applies only to a thing which is filled by another body having dimensions, which enters place and is surrounded by it. Hence it can not be said of God or of the separate intellects that they are in place, for they are not bodies having dimensions which place can surround….
…There is a question, however, worth noting, whether it is possible to attribute to God location. For though God is not in place, a specific location may be applied to Him, like above, as we read in the Bible, “For God is in heaven, and thou upon earth”… …The same is true of the soul; though she is incorporeal, nevertheless she has a certain location, viz. in the body. For since she is not outside of the body, she is identified with a certain locality, though she is not in place. Similarly we say that the soul of the wicked is judged in Gehenna. Here again though she is not body so as to be in place…”
Alba seems to be saying that while God has no place, we can “assign” a location, a kind of poetic device, to aid in our understanding. Interestingly, the place of “Gehenna” returns, this time as a metaphorical concept, for us humans to make use of. Alba finally quotes the famous phrase of the Talmud: “The Torah speaks in human language”. This is our language, our dialogue, our conversation, which we have developed over thousands of years in order to deepen our understanding of God, and of ourselves. Maybe we made this all up for ourselves. God certainly doesn’t need it, or does he?
Let’s go back to the Torah. Moses is negotiating with God on the mountain. The people below are incredulous, Moses needs to have something in his hands to convince them. Desperate, Moses says to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃
And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” He continued, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’ ” Rabbi Jeffrey Goldwasser writes: “(This is) a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist." The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes "existence," is repeated as an attribute. The word asher, is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun; it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical.”
God describes him/itself as a process, not only forward, but without time, place or distance. The answer is beyond language, but we can somehow intuit a meaning, creating new questions at the same time.
But I can’t help thinking that there might be a correlation to our calendar. We observe Rosh HaShona once a year, celebrating the creation of the world. Each year the world begins anew, we atone for our actions, we light lots of candles, we eat, we come out of Egypt, we are part of the creative process. But there is also the cyclic circle, in which Shabbat has the highest priority, above any holiday, celebrating creation or not. And this Shabbat comes again and again, teaching us that something about a process without beginning or end.
Rather, the void of Gehenna was created before the world was created, and its fire was created only on the second day of the week. And the thought arose in God’s mind to create our fire on Shabbat eve; however, it was not actually created until the conclusion of Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The thoughts of two phenomena arose in God’s mind on Shabbat eve, but were not actually created until the conclusion of Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat, the Holy One, Blessed be He, granted Adam, the first man, creative knowledge similar to divine knowledge, and he brought two rocks and rubbed them against each other, and the first fire emerged from them. Adam also brought two animals, a female horse and a male donkey, and mated them with each other, and the resultant offspring that emerged from them was a mule.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says that the first mule was in the days of Anah, as it is stated: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah; this is Anah who found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father” (Genesis 36:24).
Thoughts on Gehenna
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-19/
The interpreters of Torah symbolism [ḥamurot] would say: Anah was the product of an incestuous relationship, and as a result he was spiritually unfit to produce offspring. Therefore, he brought an example of unfitness, i.e., an animal physically unfit to produce offspring, into the world. How do we know this? As it is stated: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, and Shoval, and Zibeon, and Anah” (Genesis 36:20). And it is also stated: “And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). Rather, this teaches that Zibeon cohabited with his mother, the wife of Seir, and fathered Anah from her. He is called Seir’s son although in fact he was the offspring of Seir’s son and Seir’s wife.
And perhaps there were two people named Anah, one the son of Zibeon and the other the son of Seir? Rava said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. (And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia! He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some say a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is he that Rav Pappa is referring to by the epithet King Shapur? He is Rava!) The verse said: “This is Anah who found the mules,” indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially in the earlier verse.
תנו רבנן עשרה דברים נבראו בערב שבת בין השמשות ואלו הן באר ומן וקשת הכתב והמכתב והלוחות קברו של משה ומערה שעמד בה משה ואליהו פתיחת פי האתון ופתיחת פי הארץ לבלוע את הרשעים ויש אומרים אף מקלו של אהרן שקדיה ופרחיה ויש אומרים אף המזיקין ויש אומרים אף בגדו של אדם הראשון (ראה רש"י ד"ה בגדו)
The Sages also taught: Seven matters are concealed from people, and they are: The day of death; and the day of consolation from one’s concerns; the profundity of justice, ascertaining the truth in certain disputes; and a person also does not know what is in the heart of another; and a person does not know in what way he will earn a profit; and one does not know when the monarchy of the house of David will be restored to Israel; and when the wicked Roman monarchy will cease to exist.
The Sages taught on a similar note: The thoughts of three matters arose in God’s mind to be created, and if they did not arise in His thoughts, by right they should have arisen in His thoughts, as they are fundamental to the existence of the world. God created a world in which a corpse rots; that the deceased are forgotten from the heart; and that grain will rot. And some say: He instituted that currency will circulate.
Why are these texts important? Thoughts from Shiur
it's an invitation to complete the sentences, finding meaning in what is given
it's a model for how to debate and discuss as a community, as a society
it's recognising that there will be moments in which we cannot find meaning
it's an invitation to action - seeing ourselves in part of this cosmic scale, and recognised where we have agency or duty to intervene
it's a way to see the divine in everything - to find wonder and amazement in even the mundane or the difficult or the painful
it's a lesson on how to listen - because before taking action, you must learn to listen
(ה) מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְתִשְׁעָה בְאָב, עוֹשִׂין. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה, אֵין עוֹשִׂין. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּטֵלִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם.
(5) In a place where it is the custom to do work on the ninth of Av, one may do it; where it is the custom not to do work, one may not do it.
And in all places students of sages desist [from work on that day].
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: a person should always make themself a student of sages. (talmid chacham)
GEMARA: Shmuel said: The only communal fast in Babylonia during which all the stringencies of a communal fast are observed is the Ninth of Av.
Does that mean, based on the parallel he drew between them, that Shmuel holds that the Ninth of Av is as stringent as communal fast days, in that during twilight on the Ninth of Av all activities prohibited on the Ninth of Av are prohibited? But didn’t Shmuel say: During twilight of the Ninth of Av all activities prohibited on the Ninth of Av are permitted? And if you say that Shmuel holds: With regard to every communal fast, during twilight those activities considered to be afflictions are permitted, didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to a public fast day: "One may eat and drink while it is still day?" - What does the expression: "While it is still day", come to exclude? What, isn’t it to exclude twilight of a communal fast day, when these activities are prohibited? No, it is to exclude the time after dark.
נימא מסייע ליה אין בין תשעה באב ליום הכיפורים אלא שזה ספיקו אסור וזה ספיקו מותר מאי ספיקו מותר לאו בין השמשות לא כדאמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי לקביעא דירחא הכא נמי לקביעא דירחא
Let us say that the following baraita supports Shmuel’s opinion: "The only difference between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur is that with regard to this, Yom Kippur, its uncertainty is prohibited, whereas with regard to that, the Ninth of Av, its uncertainty is permitted". The Gemara explains why this is support for Shmuel’s opinion: What is the meaning of the expression: With regard to that, the Ninth of Av, its uncertainty is permitted? Is it not referring to twilight, with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it is day or night? Apparently, it is permitted to eat during twilight on the Ninth of Av. The Gemara rejects this: No, it is as Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said in a different context: It is referring to uncertainty with regard to the determination of the first day of the new month, which would require observance of the Festival for two days. Here, too, the baraita is referring to uncertainty with regard to determination of the first day of the new month. Since the Ninth of Av is a fast of rabbinic origin, there is no requirement to observe two days.
The Void of Uncertainty
Naomi Henkel-Guembel
אלא שזה ספיקו אסור וזה ספיקו מותר
“Rather its uncertainty is prohibited, while its uncertainty is permitted.”
The Gemara on Pessachim 54b goes on wondering: מאי ספיקו מותר
“what does it mean, ‘its uncertainty is permitted’?!” diving directly into a Halachic discussion.
But shouldn’t we first get a sense of what this term ספיקה (sfeika) is?
Jastrow translates it as ‘doubt’, while Steinsaltz translates it here as ‘uncertainty’. What is it, in the nature of uncertainty, that lets the Baraita prohibit it in the one case, but shows leniency in the other – and even permits it?
Uncertainty. The Oxford dictionary defines ‘uncertainty’ as: “a situation in which something is not known, or something that is not known or certain.” Uncertainty can be real, or just a matter of perception.
The Baraita brings uncertainty as a differentiating characteristic between two fast days: Yom Kippur – where uncertainty is prohibited – and Tisha B’Av – where uncertainty is permitted. What is it in Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av that causes our Sages of blessed memory to rule out uncertainty in the case of the prior and accedes it in the latter?
Because in the case of the prior, of Yom Kippur, we stand in front of a heavenly court, being stripped from our certainty. However, we have to be ready to immerse into this unpredictability that makes up Yom Kippur. Hence, זה ספיקו אסור – its uncertainty is forbidden.
And in case of the latter, of Tisha B’Av, we are confronted with the painful certainty (ודאות) of having lost the temple and having experienced great tragedies. When looking at the Gimatria (numerical value according to the letters) of ודאות, one notices that it has the same value אבדתי (I have lost). This is what happened at the time of the destruction: אבדתי ודאות – I have lost certainty. In light of the agonizing facts, the uncertainty can bare potential, as it says:
טוב ויחיל ודומם לתשועת ה’. טוב לגבר כי ישא על בנעוריו. ישב בדד וידם כי נטל עליו. יתם בעפר פיהו אולי יש תקוה
(איכה ג:כו-כט)
It is good to wait patiently Till rescue comes from G!d. It is good for a man, when young, To bear a yoke; Let him sit alone and be patient, When He has laid it upon him. Let him put his mouth to the dust— There may yet be hope.
(Lamentations 3:26-29)
Hence, זה ספיקו מותר- its (Tisha B’Av’s) uncertainty is permitted.
Rava taught: Pregnant women and nursing women fast and complete the fast on the Ninth of Av in the manner that they fast and complete the fast on Yom Kippur, and during twilight on the Ninth of Av it is prohibited to eat or drink. And they likewise said so in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The Ninth of Av is not like a communal fast decreed to pray for rain? What, isn’t it referring to the matter of twilight? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that it is permitted to eat and drink during twilight on the Ninth of Av. The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to performing labor, which is prohibited on the Ninth of Av, in contrast to other fasts.
Now we have five attempts to understand Rabbi Yochanan's claim, that Tisha B'Av is not like a normal community fast.
It is referring to performing labor??? We already learned explicitly in the mishna: In a place where people were accustomed to perform labor on the Ninth of Av, one performs labor; in a place where people were accustomed not to perform labor, one does not perform labor. Apparently, the prohibition against performing labor on the Ninth of Av depends on local custom and is not an outright prohibition. And even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only said that one may conduct himself as a Torah scholar and refrain from performing labor because when one sits and does not perform labor, it does not appear as presumptuousness on his part, because others may simply think that he has no work to do. However, in terms of prohibiting the performance of labor, he does not prohibit performing labor on the Ninth of Av.
Rather, what is the meaning of the expression: "The Ninth of Av is not like a communal fast"? It was stated with regard to the closing prayer (ne'ilah). On a communal fast day there are four prayers, and on Yom Kippur there are five prayers, but on the Ninth of Av there are only three prayers, like an ordinary weekday.
But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: If only a person would continue to pray throughout the entire day? This indicates that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, a person may recite additional prayers if he so chooses.
The Gemara answers: There, on a communal fast day, it is a requirement to recite four prayers; here, on the Ninth of Av, reciting additional prayers is optional according to Rabbi Yoḥanan. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the expression: The Ninth of Av is not like a communal fast? It is with regard to the twenty-four blessings that are recited on a communal fast, as six blessings were added to the eighteen blessings of the daily Amida prayer. On the Ninth of Av one recites only the standard eighteen blessings.
Rav Pappa said: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan's phrase: "The Ninth of Av is not like a communal fast"? It comes to teach a stringency. There are different types of communal fasts for rain. The first three fasts are the least stringent; the next three are more stringent; and the final seven fasts are the most stringent of all. The statement teaches that the Ninth of Av is not like the first fast days, which are more lenient in several respects; for example, they do not begin during twilight. Rather, it is like the final fast days, when eating and performing labor are prohibited during twilight.
The Gemara raises an objection: Didn’t we already learn that the only difference between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur is that with regard to this, Yom Kippur, its uncertainty is prohibited, because eating and drinking on Yom Kippur are prohibited by Torah law, whereas with regard to that, the Ninth of Av, its uncertainty is permitted? What is the meaning of the expression referring to the Ninth of Av: Its uncertainty is permitted? Is it not referring to its twilight, contrary to the statement of Rav Pappa? The Gemara rejects this. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said in a different context: No. It is uncertainty with regard to the determination of the first day of the new month. There is no requirement to observe a second day of the Ninth of Av. By inference, with regard to all other matters this and that are equal.
The Gemara comments: This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited for a person to extend his finger into water on the Ninth of Av, just as it is prohibited for him to extend his finger into water on Yom Kippur.
The Gemara raises an objection: "The only difference between the Ninth of Av and a communal fast is that on this day, a communal fast, performance of labor is prohibited, and on that day, the Ninth of Av, performance of labor is permitted in a place where people are accustomed to perform labor." By inference, with regard to all other matters this and that are equal. However, with regard to a communal fast, it was taught in a baraita: When the Sages said that bathing is prohibited, they said it only with regard to washing one’s entire body, but with regard to washing one’s face, one’s hands, and one’s feet in increments, the Sages did not say that it was prohibited. Apparently, with respect to washing, the Rabbis were stricter with regard to the Ninth of Av than they were with regard to a communal fast. Rav Pappa said: The tanna is only teaching leniencies. He taught only those aspects in which the Ninth of Av is more lenient than a communal fast, not those aspects in which it is more stringent.
It was stated in the mishna: "And in all places Torah scholars are idle and do not perform labor on the Ninth of Av, and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one should always conduct himself like a Torah scholar in this regard and refrain from performing labor."
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we are not concerned about presumptuousness (yohara) when a person conducts himself like a Torah scholar? And conversely, do the Rabbis hold that we are concerned about presumptuousness? Didn’t we hear them say the opposite? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to the recitation of Shema on one’s wedding night, the Rabbis said that if a groom wishes to recite Shema on the first night despite his exemption, he may do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not everyone who wishes to assume the reputation of a God-fearing person may assume it, and consequently, not everyone who wishes to recite Shema on his wedding night may do so. Their opinions in that mishna appear contrary to their opinions in the current mishna.
