תְּפִלַּת הַמִּנְחָה עַד הָעֶרֶב וְכוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב יִצְחָק: הָתָם אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הוֹאִיל וּתְנַן בִּבְחִירָתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ, הָכָא מַאי? אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נֶחְזֵי אֲנַן, מִדְּרַב מְצַלֵּי שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַדְּרַבָּה מִדְּרַב הוּנָא וְרַבָּנַן לָא הֲווֹ מְצַלּוּ עַד אוּרְתָּא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּמָר וְלָא כְּמָר, דַּעֲבַד כְּמָר — עֲבַד, וְדַעֲבַד כְּמָר — עֲבַד. רַב אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי גְּנִיבָא וְצַלִּי שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וַהֲוָה מְצַלֵּי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא לַאֲחוֹרֵי דְרַב, וְסַיֵּים רַב וְלָא פַּסְקֵיהּ לִצְלוֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִתְפַּלֵּל תַּלְמִיד אֲחוֹרֵי רַבּוֹ. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אָסוּר לַעֲבוֹר כְּנֶגֶד הַמִּתְפַּלְּלִין.
is identical to the opinion of the Rabbis, as the end of the period that begins with the midpoint of the afternoon is sunset. The Gemara immediately rejects this proof: Rather, what is the alternative? That until means until and not including? It remains problematic. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The additional prayer may be recited all day. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited until the seven hours. And it was taught in a baraita: If the obligation to recite two prayers was before him, one the additional prayer and one the afternoon prayer, he prays the afternoon prayer first and the additional prayer thereafter, because this, the afternoon prayer, is recited on a frequent basis, and that, the additional prayer, is recited on a relatively infrequent basis as it is only recited on Shabbat, the New Moon, and Festivals. The principle states: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites the additional prayer first and the afternoon prayer thereafter, because the time to recite this, the additional prayer, will soon elapse, and this, the time to recite the afternoon prayer, will not soon elapse, as one may recite it until the midpoint of the afternoon. The relevant point is: Granted, if you say that until means until and including, that is how you can find a situation where the times to recite two prayers, the afternoon prayer and the additional prayer, overlap. But if you say that until means until and not including, and that until seven hours means until the beginning of the seventh hour, noon, then how can you find a situation where the times to recite two prayers overlap? Once the time to recite the afternoon prayer, a half hour past noon, has arrived, the time to recite the additional prayer is already gone? Rather, what is the alternative? That until means until and including? Then the first clause of the mishna is difficult, as explained above with regard to the midpoint of the afternoon: What is the halakhic difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the opinion of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: Do you think that when this midpoint of the afternoon was mentioned it was speaking of the period following the midpoint, the last part of the afternoon, from an hour-and-a-quarter before sunset until sunset? This was not the intention. Rather, it was speaking of the period prior to the midpoint, the first part of the afternoon, which, as explained above, is from nine-and-a-half hours after sunrise until an hour-and-a-quarter before sunset. Consequently, until the midpoint of the afternoon means until the end of the first half of that afternoon period. And this is what he is saying: When does the first half leave and the second half enter? From when eleven hours minus a quarter have passed since sunrise. Rabbi Yehuda’s use of the term until always means until and including. Practically speaking, this means that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permissible to recite the morning prayer until the end of the fourth hour. In support of this Rav Naḥman said: We, too, learned this in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified about five matters of halakha:
When an orphan girl, who was married off by her mother or brother before reaching the age of majority, reaches the age of majority, she may refuse to continue living with her husband and thereby retroactively annul their marriage. Normally, marriage refusals are discouraged. However, in specific instances where it is clear that if the marriage were to remain in effect it would engender problems related to levirate marriage and ḥalitza, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified that one may persuade the minor girl to refuse to continue living with her husband, thereby resolving the complications involved in this case.
And he testified that one may allow a woman who, after hearing of her husband’s death, seeks to remarry, to marry based on the testimony of one witness, as opposed to the two witnesses required for other testimonies of the Torah.
And he testified about a rooster that was stoned to death in Jerusalem for killing a person, in order to teach that the Torah law (Exodus 21:28) which requires the stoning of an ox that killed a person, applies to other animals as well.
And he testified about forty-day-old wine that was used for libation on the altar.
And he testified about the daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours of the day. Learn from this final testimony, which is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that until means until and including. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this. Based on this mishna, Rav Kahana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda since we learned in a mishna in the preferred tractate, Eduyyot, in accordance with his opinion. Since the halakha is ruled in accordance with all of the mishnayot in Eduyyot, the opinion of a tanna who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in that mishna means that the halakha is in accordance with that opinion. And about the daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours. Based on this, the Gemara attempts to identify the tanna who taught that which we learned in the mishna about the manna that fell for the children of Israel in the desert: “And they gathered it morning by morning, each according to what he eats, and when the sun grew hot it melted” (Exodus 16:21); that took place four hours into the day. The baraita continues: Do you say that the time when the sun grew hot was at four hours, or perhaps it was only at six hours of the day? When the verse says: “In the heat of the day” (Genesis 18:1), six hours is already mentioned in the Torah as the heat of the day. How, then, do I establish the verse: “And when the sun grew hot it melted”? This must refer to an earlier time, at four hours. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of this mishna? It is neither Rabbi Yehuda nor the Sages. If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, until four hours is also considered morning, as he holds that the daily morning offering may still be sacrificed then, while here it says that in the morning the manna was gathered and it melted after the morning. If it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, until noon is also considered morning, since, according to the Sages, the daily morning offering could be sacrificed until noon. Apparently, this is an entirely new position. The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and if you wish, say instead that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: If you wish, say in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The verse states: Morning by morning, divide it into two mornings. Morning, according to the Rabbis, lasts until noon. The repetition of the term morning in the Torah indicates that the period when the manna was gathered ended at the conclusion of the first half of the morning, i.e., the end of the third hour. And if you wish, say instead in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who would say that: This extra morning in the phrase morning by morning comes to make the end of the period when the manna was gathered an hour earlier. In any event, everyone agrees that the verse, And when the sun grew hot it melted, refers to four hours of the day. The Gemara asks: From where is the inference drawn that this is the meaning of the verse? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The verse states: “When the sun grew hot it melted.” Which is the hour that the sun is hot but the shade remains cool, before the heat of the day, when even the shade is hot? You must say at four hours. We learned in the mishna: The Rabbis hold that the afternoon prayer may be recited until the evening. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Yitzḥak: There, with regard to the morning prayer, Rav Kahana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since we learned in a mishna in the preferred tractate, Eduyyot, in accordance with his opinion. Here, what is the ruling? He was silent and said nothing to him, as he was familiar with no established ruling in this matter. Rav Ḥisda said: Let us see and try to resolve this ourselves from the fact that Rav prayed the Shabbat prayers on the eve of Shabbat while it was still day. Learn from this that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the time for the afternoon prayer ends at the midpoint of the afternoon, after which time one may recite the evening prayer. The Gemara immediately rejects the proof based on Rav’s practice: On the contrary, from the fact that Rav Huna and the Sages, students of Rav, would not pray until evening, learn from that that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, one who acted in accordance with the opinion of this Sage has acted legitimately, and one who acted in accordance with the opinion of that Sage has acted legitimately, as this halakha is left to the decision of each individual. The Gemara relates: Rav happened by the house of the Sage, Geniva, and he prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba was praying behind Rav, and Rav finished his prayer but did not take three steps back and interrupt the prayer of Rabbi Yirmeya. Derive from this incident three halakhot: Derive from this that one may pray the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. And derive from this that a student may pray behind his rabbi. And derive from this that it is prohibited to pass before those who are praying. The Gemara responds: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited to pass before those who are praying. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi pass before those who were praying? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were beyond four cubits from those who were praying when they passed. One particular detail was surprising: How did Rabbi Yirmeya act that way and pray behind Rav? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should never pray
When an orphan girl, who was married off by her mother or brother before reaching the age of majority, reaches the age of majority, she may refuse to continue living with her husband and thereby retroactively annul their marriage. Normally, marriage refusals are discouraged. However, in specific instances where it is clear that if the marriage were to remain in effect it would engender problems related to levirate marriage and ḥalitza, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified that one may persuade the minor girl to refuse to continue living with her husband, thereby resolving the complications involved in this case.
And he testified that one may allow a woman who, after hearing of her husband’s death, seeks to remarry, to marry based on the testimony of one witness, as opposed to the two witnesses required for other testimonies of the Torah.
And he testified about a rooster that was stoned to death in Jerusalem for killing a person, in order to teach that the Torah law (Exodus 21:28) which requires the stoning of an ox that killed a person, applies to other animals as well.
And he testified about forty-day-old wine that was used for libation on the altar.
And he testified about the daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours of the day. Learn from this final testimony, which is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that until means until and including. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this. Based on this mishna, Rav Kahana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda since we learned in a mishna in the preferred tractate, Eduyyot, in accordance with his opinion. Since the halakha is ruled in accordance with all of the mishnayot in Eduyyot, the opinion of a tanna who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in that mishna means that the halakha is in accordance with that opinion. And about the daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours. Based on this, the Gemara attempts to identify the tanna who taught that which we learned in the mishna about the manna that fell for the children of Israel in the desert: “And they gathered it morning by morning, each according to what he eats, and when the sun grew hot it melted” (Exodus 16:21); that took place four hours into the day. The baraita continues: Do you say that the time when the sun grew hot was at four hours, or perhaps it was only at six hours of the day? When the verse says: “In the heat of the day” (Genesis 18:1), six hours is already mentioned in the Torah as the heat of the day. How, then, do I establish the verse: “And when the sun grew hot it melted”? This must refer to an earlier time, at four hours. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of this mishna? It is neither Rabbi Yehuda nor the Sages. If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, until four hours is also considered morning, as he holds that the daily morning offering may still be sacrificed then, while here it says that in the morning the manna was gathered and it melted after the morning. If it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, until noon is also considered morning, since, according to the Sages, the daily morning offering could be sacrificed until noon. Apparently, this is an entirely new position. The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and if you wish, say instead that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: If you wish, say in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The verse states: Morning by morning, divide it into two mornings. Morning, according to the Rabbis, lasts until noon. The repetition of the term morning in the Torah indicates that the period when the manna was gathered ended at the conclusion of the first half of the morning, i.e., the end of the third hour. And if you wish, say instead in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who would say that: This extra morning in the phrase morning by morning comes to make the end of the period when the manna was gathered an hour earlier. In any event, everyone agrees that the verse, And when the sun grew hot it melted, refers to four hours of the day. The Gemara asks: From where is the inference drawn that this is the meaning of the verse? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The verse states: “When the sun grew hot it melted.” Which is the hour that the sun is hot but the shade remains cool, before the heat of the day, when even the shade is hot? You must say at four hours. We learned in the mishna: The Rabbis hold that the afternoon prayer may be recited until the evening. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Yitzḥak: There, with regard to the morning prayer, Rav Kahana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since we learned in a mishna in the preferred tractate, Eduyyot, in accordance with his opinion. Here, what is the ruling? He was silent and said nothing to him, as he was familiar with no established ruling in this matter. Rav Ḥisda said: Let us see and try to resolve this ourselves from the fact that Rav prayed the Shabbat prayers on the eve of Shabbat while it was still day. Learn from this that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the time for the afternoon prayer ends at the midpoint of the afternoon, after which time one may recite the evening prayer. The Gemara immediately rejects the proof based on Rav’s practice: On the contrary, from the fact that Rav Huna and the Sages, students of Rav, would not pray until evening, learn from that that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, one who acted in accordance with the opinion of this Sage has acted legitimately, and one who acted in accordance with the opinion of that Sage has acted legitimately, as this halakha is left to the decision of each individual. The Gemara relates: Rav happened by the house of the Sage, Geniva, and he prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba was praying behind Rav, and Rav finished his prayer but did not take three steps back and interrupt the prayer of Rabbi Yirmeya. Derive from this incident three halakhot: Derive from this that one may pray the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. And derive from this that a student may pray behind his rabbi. And derive from this that it is prohibited to pass before those who are praying. The Gemara responds: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited to pass before those who are praying. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi pass before those who were praying? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were beyond four cubits from those who were praying when they passed. One particular detail was surprising: How did Rabbi Yirmeya act that way and pray behind Rav? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should never pray
של שבת בערב שבת – שקבל עליו שבת מבעוד יום:
שמע מינה – כרבי יהודה ס"ל דאמר מפלג המנחה אזיל ליה זמן תפלת המנחה ועייל ליה זמן תפלת ערבית:
דרב צלי של שבת בע"ש - תימה דהא אמרינן בפרק במה מדליקין (שבת ד' כג:) ובלבד שלא יקדים ושלא יאחר. ויש לומר דהתם בשאינו מקבל עליו שבת מיד אבל הכא מיירי שמקבל עליו שבת מיד הלכך לא הויא הקדמה וטעמא משום דס"ל כרבי יהודה וכן הנך דלקמן שהתפללו של מ"ש בשבת היינו משום דסבירא להו כרבי יהודה לענין תפלת הערב שהיא שעה ורביע קודם הלילה אעפ"כ [אין] אסור לעשות מלאכה במ"ש מיד לאחר פלג המנחה וכן לענין תוספת שבת (וט' באב) וי"ה דקי"ל שהוא מן התורה אם כן לא צריך שיעור גדול כל כך:
THAT RAV PRAYED THE SHABBAT [PRAYERS ON] THE EVE OF SHABBAT. The Gemara shows that one may act in accordance with R’ Yehudoh’s opinion and say maariv immediately after the half minchoh. This can be seen fro Rav, who said the Shabos maariv prayers on Friday afternoon after the half minchoh period. This is acceptable only according to R’ Yehudoh. The Rabanan do not allow for saying maariv early. Tosfos raises another problem with saying maariv early on Friday afternoon. This is bewildering. For the Gemara says in perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabos 23b) when discussing the proper time to light the Shabos candles, provided that one should not light too early before nightfall or too late. When one says the maariv prayers at the half minchoh, he is going to light the candles before he begins to pray, it seems that this would be too early, and the Gemara clearly states that one should not light the candles too early.
And we can answer; that there in Shabos 23b where the Gemara says that one should not light too early, it is speaking of when one is not accepting the Shabos upon himself, he is lighting the candles but expects to continue working. It is only then that we are told not to light the candles too early, but here in our Gemara, we are speaking of when he accepts Shabos and stops working immediately. Therefore, it is not considered too early to light the candles even though it is well before nightfall.
And the reason that it is acceptable to say maariv immediately after the half minchoh is because he, Rav, holds like R’ Yehudoh. And so too, the others mentioned later that said the Post-Shabos prayers on Shabos after the half minchoh, that is because they hold like R’ Yehudoh as far as the evening prayers are concerned, that it can be said an hour and a quarter before nightfall.
There is much disagreement about the correct text of the next portion of the Tosfos. We will follow the text that appears in the Tosfos HoRosh on this subject. This is by no means a declaration that this is the correct text; it is merely the simplest one to follow in the context of how Tosfos is presented. Even though, we say that one who usually says maariv after the half minchoh cannot say minchoh at that time, this is only a ruling that applies to prayer not to other areas of halochoh and it is not prohibited for one to do work erev Shabos immediately after the half minchoh when he did not accept Shabos by saying maariv.
And so too, as far as the issue of adding to Shabos and Yom Tov and Yom Kipur, that it is established for us that the obligation to add some time from the previous day to the Holy day by discontinuing our work prior to the exact beginning of the Holy Day is a Torah obligation, even so it is not required to have such a great amount of time as from the half minchoh till nightfall. It is certainly sufficient to add a relatively small period to the Shabos or other Holy Day to fulfill the Torah obligation to add some time. It is certainly not necessary to begin the holiday at the half minchoh time, even according to R’ Yehudoh.
And we can answer; that there in Shabos 23b where the Gemara says that one should not light too early, it is speaking of when one is not accepting the Shabos upon himself, he is lighting the candles but expects to continue working. It is only then that we are told not to light the candles too early, but here in our Gemara, we are speaking of when he accepts Shabos and stops working immediately. Therefore, it is not considered too early to light the candles even though it is well before nightfall.
And the reason that it is acceptable to say maariv immediately after the half minchoh is because he, Rav, holds like R’ Yehudoh. And so too, the others mentioned later that said the Post-Shabos prayers on Shabos after the half minchoh, that is because they hold like R’ Yehudoh as far as the evening prayers are concerned, that it can be said an hour and a quarter before nightfall.
There is much disagreement about the correct text of the next portion of the Tosfos. We will follow the text that appears in the Tosfos HoRosh on this subject. This is by no means a declaration that this is the correct text; it is merely the simplest one to follow in the context of how Tosfos is presented. Even though, we say that one who usually says maariv after the half minchoh cannot say minchoh at that time, this is only a ruling that applies to prayer not to other areas of halochoh and it is not prohibited for one to do work erev Shabos immediately after the half minchoh when he did not accept Shabos by saying maariv.
And so too, as far as the issue of adding to Shabos and Yom Tov and Yom Kipur, that it is established for us that the obligation to add some time from the previous day to the Holy day by discontinuing our work prior to the exact beginning of the Holy Day is a Torah obligation, even so it is not required to have such a great amount of time as from the half minchoh till nightfall. It is certainly sufficient to add a relatively small period to the Shabos or other Holy Day to fulfill the Torah obligation to add some time. It is certainly not necessary to begin the holiday at the half minchoh time, even according to R’ Yehudoh.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: רַב צַלִּי שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה מְצַלֵּי שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת. רַב צַלִּי שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת: אוֹמֵר קְדוּשָּׁה עַל הַכּוֹס, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר קְדוּשָּׁה עַל הַכּוֹס? תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר קְדוּשָּׁה עַל הַכּוֹס. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ. רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה מְצַלֵּי שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת: אוֹמֵר הַבְדָּלָה עַל הַכּוֹס אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר הַבְדָּלָה עַל הַכּוֹס? תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הַבְדָּלָה עַל הַכּוֹס. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַב: בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה הִתְפַּלֵּל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת כִּי אֲתָא עוּלָּא אָמַר: בְּצַד תְּמָרָה הֲוָה, וְלֹא בְּצַד עַמּוּד הֲוָה. וְלֹא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה, אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה, וְלֹא שֶׁל שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, הֲוָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת הֲוָה.
directly next to his rabbi, presumptuously indicating that he is his rabbi’s equal, and behind his rabbi as it creates the impression that he is bowing to him (Tosafot)? And it was taught in a baraita, in a more extreme manner, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One who prays behind his rabbi and one who greets his rabbi without waiting for his rabbi to greet him first, one who returns his rabbi’s greeting without saying: Greetings to you, rabbi, one who rivals his rabbi’s yeshiva, i.e., establishes a yeshiva of his own and teaches during his rabbi’s lifetime without his consent (Rambam), and one who says something in the name of his rabbi which he did not hear directly from his rabbi, causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel. With regard to Rabbi Yirmeya’s conduct, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba is different, as he was not a mere student of Rav. Rather, he was a disciple-colleague and was, therefore, permitted to act that way. And that is why on one occasion, when Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer early, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba asked him: Did you distance yourself from labor and accept the sanctity of Shabbat? Rav said to him: Yes, I distanced myself. And Rabbi Yirmeya did not say to him: Did the Master distance himself, as would have been appropriate had he merely been Rav’s student. Although Rav replied that he distanced himself from labor, did he indeed need to distance himself from labor? Didn’t Rabbi Avin say: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. He then entered the bathhouse and emerged and taught us our chapters that we had learned, and it was not yet dark. Rava said: That is a case where he had entered the bathhouse to perspire, and it was before the Sages issued a decree prohibiting perspiring in a bathhouse on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that he was required to refrain from labor? Didn’t Abaye permit Rav Dimi bar Liva’ei to fumigate baskets with sulfur even though he had already recited the Shabbat prayer, indicating that it is permitted to perform labor even after the Shabbat prayer? The Gemara responds: That was an error, as Rav Dimi did not intend to begin Shabbat early. It was a cloudy day and he mistakenly thought that the sun had set and that was why he prayed. Consequently, even though he prayed, the Shabbat prayer did not obligate him to conduct himself in accordance with the sanctity of Shabbat and he was allowed to perform labor even after his prayer. The Gemara goes on to ask: Can a mistake be reversed, enabling one to conduct himself as if he had not prayed? Didn’t Avidan, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say: Once the sky became overcast, leading the people to think that it was the dark of night; they entered the synagogue and recited the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. And later, the clouds cleared and the sun shone, indicating that it was still day. And they came and asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi what they should do, and he said: Since they have prayed, they have prayed, and they need not pray again. Although they prayed erroneously, their mistake is not reversible and what was done remains. The Gemara responds: A community is different in that we do not burden them to pray again. The Gemara continues to discuss the possibility of reciting the evening prayer early, even on Shabbat. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. With regard to the fact that Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall, the dilemma is raised: In those cases, did he recite kiddush over the cup of wine, or did he not recite kiddush over the cup of wine before the stars emerged? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: One prays the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall and recites kiddush over the cup of wine. And the halakha is in accordance with his ruling. A similar dilemma was raised concerning the fact that Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat: After praying, while it is still Shabbat, does he recite havdala over the cup of wine or does one not recite havdala over the cup of wine? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One prays the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat and recites havdala over the cup of wine. Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rav said: Alongside this specific pillar before me, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. But when Ulla came from the Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of this story. He said that he had heard: This transpired beside a palm tree, not beside a pillar, and it was not Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, but it was Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and it was not the Shabbat prayer on Shabbat eve before nightfall, rather it was the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. We learned in the mishna: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night and is not fixed to a specific hour. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of is not fixed? If you say that if one wishes, he may pray throughout the night, then let the mishna teach: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night. Rather, what is the meaning of not fixed? It is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said with regard to the evening prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: It is obligatory. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is optional. Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is obligatory. Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a student, who came before Rabbi Yehoshua. The student said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Optional. The same student came before Rabban Gamliel and said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. The student said to Rabban Gamliel: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua tell me that the evening prayer is optional? Rabban Gamliel said to the student: Wait until the “masters of the shields,” a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, enter the study hall, at which point we will discuss this issue. When the masters of the shields entered, the questioner stood before everyone present and asked: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. In order to ascertain whether or not Rabbi Yehoshua still maintained his opinion, Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who disputes this matter? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, no one disagrees. In deference to the Nasi, he did not wish to argue with him publicly (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ḥayya). Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But was it not in your name that they told me that the evening prayer is optional? Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: If I were alive and the student were dead, the living can contradict the dead, and I could deny issuing that ruling. Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living? I have no choice but to admit that I said it. In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel, as the Nasi, was sitting and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, because Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture. And he stopped. The Gemara relates that in their murmuring they said: How long will Rabban Gamliel continue afflicting him? Last year on Rosh HaShana, he afflicted him; Rabban Gamliel ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to come to him carrying his staff and bag, on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred, according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s calculations. Regarding the firstborn, in the incident involving the question of Rabbi Tzadok, he afflicted him just as he did now, and forced him to remain standing as punishment for his failure to defend his differing opinion. Here too, he is afflicting him. Let us remove him from his position as Nasi. It was so agreed, but the question arose: Who shall we establish in his place? Shall we establish Rabbi Yehoshua in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Yehoshua was party to the incident for which Rabban Gamliel was deposed. Appointing him would be extremely upsetting for Rabban Gamliel. Shall we establish Rabbi Akiva in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Akiva, who descended from a family of converts, would be vulnerable. Perhaps due to Rabban Gamliel’s resentment he would cause him to be divinely punished as he lacks the merit of his ancestors to protect him. Rather, suggested the Sages, let us establish Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, his outstanding characteristics set him apart from the other candidates. He is wise, rich, and a tenth generation descendant of Ezra. The Gemara explains: He is wise, so if Rabban Gamliel raises a challenge in matters of Torah, he will answer it and not be embarrassed. And he is rich, so if the need arises to pay homage to the Caesar’s court and serve as a representative of Israel to lobby and negotiate, he has sufficient wealth to cover the costs of the long journeys, taxes, and gifts, so he too is able to go and pay homage. And he is a tenth generation descendant of Ezra, so he has the merit of his ancestors, and Rabban Gamliel will be unable to cause him to be punished. They came and said to him: Would the Master consent to being the Head of the Yeshiva? He said to them: I will go and consult with my household. He went and consulted with his wife. She said to him:
הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה קֹדֶם זְמַנָּהּ לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וּמִתְפַּלֵּל אוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַנָּהּ. וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלַּת שַׁחֲרִית בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק אַחַר שֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר יָצָא. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלַּת עַרְבִית שֶׁל לֵילֵי שַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה. וְכֵן יִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת לְפִי שֶׁתְּפִלַּת עַרְבִית רְשׁוּת אֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בִּזְמַנָּהּ. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע בִּזְמַנָּהּ אַחַר צֵאת הַכּוֹכָבִים:
One who recites a service, before the time appointed, has not fulfilled his duty and has to recite it again at the right time. But, if a person, on an urgent occasion, has recited the morning service after dawn (but before sunrise) he has fulfilled his duty. The evening service for the Sabbath Eve should be recited on the Eve of the Sabbath, before sunset. So the evening service for the close of the sabbath may be recited on the sabbath; the reason being that as the evening service is optional, one need not be strict as to the time of its recital; provided that the Shema is read at the proper time after the stars are visible.
ויש לו להתפלל תפלת ערבית וכו'. כלומר כבר אפשר לו לעשות כן והיינו אם לא יתפלל מנחה מפלג המנחה ולמעלה וכמו שכתבתי לעיל בפרק זה, ולאו דוקא של שבת בערב שבת או של מוצאי שבת בשבת דה''ה בכל יום אלא שרבינו העתיק לשון הגמרא דגרסינן בתפלת השחר (דף כ''ז ע''ב) אמר ר''ח בר אבין רב צלי של שבת בע''ש ורבי יאשיה צלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת:
הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁזְּמַן מִנְחָה גְּדוֹלָה מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַד תֵּשַׁע שָׁעוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה. וּזְמַן מִנְחָה קְטַנָּה מִתֵּשַׁע שָׁעוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר מִן הַיּוֹם שָׁעָה וּרְבִיעַ. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִתְפַּלֵּל אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה:
Hence, the time for reciting the major afternoon service begins six and a half hours (after dawn) and continues till nine and a half hours (after that time), while the time for the minor afternoon service begins from nine and a half hours and continues till one and a quarter hours before the close of day. The prayer should however be recited before sunset.
תְּפִלַּת הָעֶרֶב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹבָה הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל אוֹתָהּ זְמַנָּהּ מִתְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. ותְּפִלַּת נְעִילָה זְמַנָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים אוֹתָהּ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה:
The time for the evening service, though it is not obligatory, is, for the one who reads it, from the commencement of nightfall till dawn. The Neilah*Concluding Service on the Day of Atonement and, in earlier times, on any public fast-day. should be read at a time to allow it to be completed near sunset.
ד. אמנם יש להתבונן בזה בדברי הרמב"ם בפרק ג' דין ד' שכתב: "הא למדת שזמן מנחה גדולה משש שעות ומחצה עד תשע שעות ומחצה, וזמן מנחה קטנה מתשע שעות ומחצה עד שישאר מן היום שעה ורביע, ויש לו להתפלל אותה עד שתשקע החמה" עכ"ל.ופירש רבינו הבית יוסף בספרו כסף משנה דהכי קאמר: אם ירצה יתפלל עד שעה ורביע כרבי יהודה, ואם ירצה יתפלל עד שקיעה כרבנן ע"ש. ואי אפשר לומר כן, דאם כן עיקר חסר מן הספר, ועוד דאחר כך כתב: "תפלת הערב זמנה מתחלת הלילה וכו'”, ואי כפירוש זה הלא כשנוהג כרבי יהודה זמנה שעה ורביע קודם הלילה.
ה. ויראה לי דלהרמב"ם היה לו בזה שיטה אחרת, ומנחה אינו תלוי בערבית לומר שכשכלה זמן מנחה מתחיל תפלת ערבית. דבאמת יש בזה בגמרא דברים תמוהים, שאומר שם (כ"ז.): "השתא דלא אתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר, דעביד כמר עביד ודעביד כמר עביד". ותימא, כיון דלא אתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר הדרינן לכללא: "יחיד ורבים - הלכה כרבים" כבכל התורה כולה, ואין דומה לזה בכל הש"ס.ועוד דמקודם (כ"ו:) מביא ברייתא הך פלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבנן, והכי איתא שם: "ומפני מה אמרו תפלת המנחה עד הערב, שהרי תמיד של בין הערבים קרב והולך עד הערב. רבי יהודה אומר: עד פלג המנחה, שהרי תמיד של בין הערבים קרב והולך עד פלג המנחה" ע"ש. ואינו אלא תימא, וכי נחלקו מתי היתה ההקרבה במקדש, ועוד שלשון 'שהרי' משמע דבר ברור, והמה שני הפכים.
ו. אך לפי עניות דעתי העניין כן הוא: דהנה תפלת המנחה הוא כנגד תמיד של בין הערבים, ולפי שבכל יום הקריבוהו בתשעה ומחצה כדתנן ריש פרק תמיד נשחט, וכמ"ש הרמב"ם שם מקודם ע"ש. ודבר ידוע שהקרבתו לא היה שוהה עד הלילה, שהרי היו צריכין להקטיר קטורת ומנחה וניסוך היין והשיר, ולכל היותר לא שהו בהקרבתו יותר ממחצה זמן זה, דהיינו שעה ורביע.ולזה שפיר קאמר רבי יהודה: "שהרי קרב עד פלג המנחה”, כלומר שכן היתה הקרבתו התמידית, ורבנן שפיר קאמרי: "שהרי קרב עד הערב”, כלומר אם יארע שלא קרבוהו בט' ומחצה הלא מותר להקריבו עד הערב. ולפי זה שפיר קאמר הש"ס: "השתא דלא אתמר הלכתא וכו'”, כלומר דבזה לא שייך לומר "יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים", דוודאי גם רבנן מודים לרבי יהודה דעד פלג המנחה הוא העיקר, כיון שכן היה בכל יום, אלא דפליגי דלרבי יהודה אין לו להתפלל אחר פלג המנחה, מפני שברוב הימים לא נאחרה הקרבתו מפלג המנחה.אבל רבנן סברי דוודאי לכתחילה יותר טוב להתפלל עד פלג המנחה, אך בדיעבד אם לא התפלל יכול להתפלל עד הערב (וכ"מ להדיא מרמב"ם פרק ג' הלכה ז', ואין צריך לדוחק של הכ"מ ע"ש ודו"ק).
ז. ונמצא לפי זה דבאמת קיימא לן כרבנן, אלא דאי אפשר לומר להדיא כן, דאם כן הוה משמע שלכתחילה יכול לאחר עד הערב, ואינו כן. ולזה אומר: "דעבד כמר עביד וכו'”, כלומר שיש לפסוק כשניהם דלכתחילה יראה להתפלל עד פלג המנחה, אך אם לא עשה כן מתפלל עד הערב.והן הן דברי הרמב"ם שכתב: "וזמן מנחה קטנה מט' ומחצה עד שישאר שעה ורביע", כלומר כן יהדר להתפלל אז. ואחר כך אומר: "ויש לו להתפלל אותה עד שתשקע החמה", כלומר דאם לא קדם להתפלל, מתפלל אחר כך כרבנן. והנה לפי זה אין העניין נוגע לתפלת ערבית כלל, ואנו שמתפללים סמוך לשקיעת החמה הוה גם כן לא לפי שיטה זו, והיא שיטה המחוורת. אך מה נוכל לעשות שקשה לקבץ עשרה קודם פלג המנחה, ומי שיכול לעשות כן או המתפלל ביחידות, מצוה וחובה להתפלל קודם פלג המנחה.
ג. אמנם האמת דהכי פירושו: דוודאי הך ד'אין לה קבע' - שאין לה קביעות זמן, כלומר כיון שהיא כנגד הקטרת האיברים, וידוע שההקטרה התחילה מבעוד יום אחרי הקטרת האמורין, אלא שכשרה גם כל הלילה, ולכן התפלה היא גם כן מתחלת מבעוד יום ונמשכת כל הלילה. אלא הגמרא קאמרה מדלא תני מפורש כן, שמע מינה דאתא לאשמעינן גם הך דתפלת ערבית רשות, אבל העיקר הפירוש הוא כמ"ש.ולפי זה אפילו לרבנן דתפלת מנחה עד הערב, מכל מקום גם תפלת ערבית רשאי להתפלל מן זמן הקטרת איברים שהם בערך מפלג המנחה ולמעלה. וקל וחומר בשבת, דצריך להיות עיקר התפלה מבעוד יום, שהרי איברי תמיד של בין הערבים של ערב שבת אסור להקריבן בלילה בשבת, כדאמרינן בשבת (כ"ד:): "ולא עולת חול בשבת”.
ד. וגם למאן דאמר דתפלת אבות תקנום גם כן מוכח כן, דאמרינן שם דיעקב תקן תפלת ערבית. והקשו התוספות דבחולין (צ"א:) מפורש שיעקב התפלל מבעוד יום. ותרצו דלרבי יהודה דמנחה היא עד פלג המנחה אתי שפיר, דמתחיל זמן מעריב מפלג המנחה ע"ש, ועדיין קשה לרבנן.אך לדברינו אתי שפיר, דגם לרבנן מתחיל זמן מעריב מבעוד יום. (ובזה מובנים דברי הרמב"ם בפרק ג' דין ז', ואף שתלה מפני שהיא רשות ע"ש, מכל מקום עיקר הטעם כמ"ש ודו"ק)
ה. וכן מוכח בירושלמי (ריש פרק ד') דאמרינן שם: "רבי מפקד לאבדן, אכריז קמי ציבורא: מאן דמצלי ליצלי דרמשא עד יומא קאים, וכן הוה מכריז רבי חייא" ע"ש.ולכאורה זהו רק אליבא דרבי יהודה, ואם כן איך קאמר הש"ס דידן דלא אתמר הלכתא לא כרבנן ולא כרבי יהודה, הלא הלכה למעשה הורו רבי ורבי חייא כרבי יהודה. אלא וודאי דתפלת ערבית אינו נוגע לפלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבנן, ואפילו לרבנן מותר להתפלל מבעוד יום.(וצ"ע לפי זה מאי דאמרינן: "מדרב מצלי של שבת בערב שבת, שמע מינה דכרבי יהודה סבירא ליה". ודחי: "אדרבא מדרב הונא ורבנן לא מצלו עד אורתא, שמע מינה הלכה כרבנן" ע"ש, ולדברינו הא גם לרבנן כן הוא בערבית. וצריך לומר דבאמת היה יכול לדחות כן, וגם היה יכול לדחות מטעם תוספת שבת, כדאיתא בירושלמי שם דלעניין שבת פשיטא ע"ש, אלא דדחי שמזה אין ראיה כלל. ובעל כורחנו צריך לומר כן, דאם לא כן מה שייך 'אדרבא', נימא באמת דפליגי בזה. אלא וודאי דהכי פירושו: דמתפלות אין ראיה כלל, דכמו שלא נוכל לדייק מדרב הונא דהלכה כרבנן, דאטו לרבי יהודה אין להתפלל בלילה, כמו כן לא נידוק מדרב דהלכה כרבי יהודה, שהרי אפילו לרבנן יכול לעשות כן, ולפי זה אדרבא הוה ראיה לדברינו. והש"ס דחי: דמתפלת ערבית אין ראיה לפלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבנן ודו"ק).
חידושי חתם סופר, ברכות כז:
ובזה נמי מיושב מה שכתב הרמב"ם פ"ג מהלכות תפלה ה"ז וז"ל ויש לו להתפלל תפלת ערבית של שבת בערב שבת קודם שתשקע החמה וכן מתפלל של מוצאי שבת בשבת לפי שתפלת ערבית רשות אין מדקדקים בזמנה ובלבד שיקרא קריאת שמע בזמנה אחר צאת הכוכבים ע"ש והראב"ד השיג עליו אין ראוי לעשות כן אלא לצורך שעה והלא צריך לסמוך גאולה לתפלה עכ"ל הראב"ד ומה שכתב בכסף משנה דאה"נ דהרמב"ם לא שרי אלא לעת הצורך זהו דוחק שהרי לא הזכיר מזה ועוד דצורך דערב שבת הוא מצות תוספת שבת כמשמע מהפוסקים והרמב"ם הא לית ליה מצות תוספת אפילו דרבנן כמ"ש ב"י סי' רס"א ולפי הנ"ל א"ש טפי דבשבת לא שייך מצות סמיכות גאולה לתפלה ומיושב נמי דקדוק ויש לו להתפלל וכו' משמע דמצוה איכא להתפלל של שבת בע"ש ושל מוצאי שבת בשבת והשתא א"ש דודאי איכא מצוה משום חביבא מצוה בשעתה אלא שיש קצת דוחק במה שסיים שתפלת ערבית רשות היא וכו' ויש ליישב לשון זה בנקל ודו"ק
ובזה נמי מיושב מה שכתב הרמב"ם פ"ג מהלכות תפלה ה"ז וז"ל ויש לו להתפלל תפלת ערבית של שבת בערב שבת קודם שתשקע החמה וכן מתפלל של מוצאי שבת בשבת לפי שתפלת ערבית רשות אין מדקדקים בזמנה ובלבד שיקרא קריאת שמע בזמנה אחר צאת הכוכבים ע"ש והראב"ד השיג עליו אין ראוי לעשות כן אלא לצורך שעה והלא צריך לסמוך גאולה לתפלה עכ"ל הראב"ד ומה שכתב בכסף משנה דאה"נ דהרמב"ם לא שרי אלא לעת הצורך זהו דוחק שהרי לא הזכיר מזה ועוד דצורך דערב שבת הוא מצות תוספת שבת כמשמע מהפוסקים והרמב"ם הא לית ליה מצות תוספת אפילו דרבנן כמ"ש ב"י סי' רס"א ולפי הנ"ל א"ש טפי דבשבת לא שייך מצות סמיכות גאולה לתפלה ומיושב נמי דקדוק ויש לו להתפלל וכו' משמע דמצוה איכא להתפלל של שבת בע"ש ושל מוצאי שבת בשבת והשתא א"ש דודאי איכא מצוה משום חביבא מצוה בשעתה אלא שיש קצת דוחק במה שסיים שתפלת ערבית רשות היא וכו' ויש ליישב לשון זה בנקל ודו"ק
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשְּׁבוּת מְלָאכָה בּוֹ בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה כָּךְ שְׁבוּת לְעִנּוּי בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה. וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹסִיף מֵחל עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ וּבִיצִיאָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג לב) "וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעֶרֶב". כְּלוֹמַר הַתְחֵיל לָצוּם וּלְהִתְעַנּוֹת מֵעֶרֶב תִּשְׁעָה הַסָּמוּךְ לַעֲשִׂירִי. וְכֵן בַּיְצִיאָה שׁוֹהָה בְּעִנּוּיוֹ מְעַט מִלֵּיל אַחַד עָשָׂר סָמוּךְ לַעֲשִׂירִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד עֶרֶב (ויקרא כג לב) "תִּשְׁבְּתוּ שַׁבַּתְּכֶם":
The same as the rabbinically forbidden occupations on Yom Kippur apply to both day and night, so the rabbinical interpretation of affliction applies to both day and night. One must add to Yom Kippur parts of the preceding and following weekdays, as it is written: "You shall abstain and fast from the sunset of the ninth day" (Leviticus 23:32), which means: you shall begin fasting and afflicting yourselves from the sunset of the ninth day bordering on the tenth day. So too, at the termination of Yom Kippur, one should prolong the fasting somewhat into the night of the eleventh day of Tishri, as it is written: "From sunset of the ninth day to sunset of the tenth day you shall keep your Sabbath."
וצריך להוסיף וכו'. מדברי רבינו נראה שאין תוספת דבר תורה אלא בעינוי אבל לא בעשיית מלאכה לא ביוה''כ ולא בשבתות וזהו שכתב מתחיל לצום ולהתענות וזהו שלא נזכר בדבריו בהלכות שבת תוספת כלל מן התורה. ובפרק יוה''כ נראה שהדבר במחלוקת תנאים ששם יש מי שדרש יכול יהא מוזהר על תוספת מלאכה ת''ל וכל מלאכה לא תעשו בעצם היום הזה על עצומו של יום הוא מוזהר ואינו מוזהר על תוספת מלאכה וברייתא אחרת שנו שם ועניתם את נפשותיכם וכו' מכאן שמוסיפין מחול על הקדש וכו'. ימים טובים מנין תלמוד לומר תשבתו שבתות מנין ת''ל שבתכם הא למדת שכל מקום שנאמר שבות מוסיפין מחול על הקדש. ושם אמרו דאיכא מאן דמוקים לה להאי קרא לדרשא אחריתא והיא ידועה בגמרא שכל האוכל ושותה בתשיעי ונתענה בעשירי מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו נצטוה להתענות ט' ועשירי והתענה ולזה כתב רבינו תוספת בענוי בלבד. אבל ההלכות נראה דעתם לפסוק כדברי הברייתא ששונה תוספת לכל יום קדש והביאו משני הברייתות מקצתן כאילו הן ברייתא אחת ופרק קמא דראש השנה (דף ט') אמרו דר' ישמעאל דורש תוספת מועניתם ור''ע דורש לכל האוכל ושותה וסובר רבינו שהם חולקים וידוע דהלכה כר''ע מחבירו. אבל דעת שאר המפרשים שתוספת יש מן התורה אפילו בשבתות וימים טובים וכן נראה מן ההלכות:
הַמַּדְלִיק צָרִיךְ לְהַדְלִיק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם קֹדֶם שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה. וְנָשִׁים מְצֻוּוֹת עַל דָּבָר זֶה יוֹתֵר מִן הָאֲנָשִׁים לְפִי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּיוֹת בַּבָּתִּים וְהֵן הָעֲסוּקוֹת בִּמְלֶאכֶת הַבַּיִת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן צָרִיךְ הָאִישׁ לְהַזְהִירָן וְלִבְדֹּק אוֹתָן עַל כָּךְ וְלוֹמַר לָהֶן וּלְאַנְשֵׁי בֵּיתוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת קֹדֶם שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ הַדְלִיקוּ אֶת הַנֵּר. סְפֵק חֲשֵׁכָה וְנִכְנַס הַשַּׁבָּת סָפֵק לֹא נִכְנַס אֵין מַדְלִיקִין:
The Sabbath lights should be lit during daytime, before sunset. This duty is assigned to women rather than men, because women are usually at home doing housework. Nevertheless, the man should caution them, asking them about it, and telling them and the other members of his household, every Friday before it gets dark: "Light the lights!" If it is doubtful whether darkness has already fallen or not, whether the Sabbath has or has not begun, the lights may not be lit.
המדליק צריך להדליק מבעוד יום וכו'. רבינו לא הזכיר פה דין תוספת מחול על הקדש וכתב ה''ה בפ''א מהלכות שביתת עשור דטעמא משום דלית ליה תוספת דבר תורה אלא לעינוי יוה''כ לבד דס''ל דהלכה כמאן דדריש לקראי לדרשא אחרינא עכ''ל, ומשמע לי דדבר תורה שכתב לאו דוקא דמדרבנן נמי לית ליה תוספת דאל''כ הוה ליה להשמיטו:
יֵשׁ לוֹ לְאָדָם לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הַכּוֹס עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנְסָה הַשַּׁבָּת. וְכֵן מַבְדִּיל עַל הַכּוֹס מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא שַׁבָּת. שֶׁמִּצְוַת זְכִירָה לְאָמְרָהּ בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתוֹ וִיצִיאָתוֹ בֵּין קֹדֶם לְשָׁעָה זוֹ כִּמְעַט:
One may make Kiddush over a cup on the eve of Shabbat while it is still day, even though Shabbat has not come in. And likewise may he make Havdalah over a cup while it is still day, even though it is still Shabbat. For the commandment of its mention is either to say it at the time of its entry and exit or a bit before that time.