Making Shabbos

(1) "Who appointed the moon for seasons" (Psalms 104:19). R. Yoḥanan commented: The orb of the sun alone was created to give light. If so, why was the moon created? "For seasons": in order to sanctify new moons and years thereby. R. Shila of Kefar Temarta said in R. Yoẕanan's name: Yet even so, "the sun knows its coming" (Psalms 104:19): from the sun one knows the [month's] coming, for we count the beginning of the month only from sunset.

(2) BERESHIT RABBAH 6:1

(3) I. The Problem

(4) Some time during the early period of space exploration, this writer was present at a gathering at which Milton Himmelfarb delivered a talk on the state of the Jewish community. After pointing out that Jews had achieved acceptance, and indeed prominence, in the professions, public service, finance etc., he digressed to note that there had been no Jewish astronauts. To explain that exception to the already well-established norm, Himmelfarb lapsed into Yiddish in explaining that no Jew wished to become a pioneer in space travel: "Dort ken men doch derharget veren—A person could get killed out there!" Afterward, this writer commented, only partially tongue in cheek, that Jews perforce abjure space travel because of a quandary with regard to the proper time for prayer and because of confusion with regard to observance of Shabbat.

(5) Although Himmelfarb's comment was ominously prescient, with regard to Jews choosing space travel as a profession, time has proved both of us to have been wrong. In the ensuing years there have been a significant number of Jewish astronauts. The first was Dr. Judith Resnick who flew on the maiden voyage of Discovery in 1984 and who was aboard the ill-fated Challenger in which she perished with the rest of the crew shortly after takeoff. At the time of her planned flight there were reports, perhaps apocryphal, that she had expressed curiosity with regard to determining the proper time for kindling Sabbath candles. Later, for some reason, another Jewish astronaut, Scott Horowitz, took with him an artifact described as a "space Torah" and subsequently presented that memento to a temple in Houston. David Wolf flew on three shuttle flights and spent four months, including Chanukah, on the Russian space station Mir. Although kindling a menorah would have been dangerous in the oxygen-rich atmosphere of the space station, he did spin a dreidel which Wolf claims he was able to spin in zero gravity for an hour and a half on a single twirl.

(6) Most recently, in January of 2003, after repeated postponements, Colonel Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli astronaut, joined a crew of NASA astronauts aboard the space shuttle Columbia on a mission that ended in tragedy sixteen days later on February 1st. Kosher food of a type that can be reconstituted in space was prepared for the Jewish astronaut by a company in Illinois. He also consulted a rabbi identified with the Lubavitch movement serving in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral with regard to the proper method of determining when to observe Shabbat. Colonel Ramon indicated to one reporter that he was not strictly Sabbath observant and would also find it impossible fully to observe Shabbat during his mission in space, but that he nevertheless felt that in participating in the space program he was "representing all Jews and all Israelis" and therefore should endeavor to conduct himself accordingly.

(7) One may surely hope that the interest and discussion evoked by Colonel Ramon's query will impress upon others the importance of Sabbath observance. In any event, the sentiments he expressed are themselves quite salutary: A Jew may not have developed the spiritual fortitude that fosters consistency in abiding by the demands of Judaism but may nevertheless intuitively shrink from public transgression. The Jewishness that was at the core of his being caused him to recoil from unnecessary Sabbath desecration that was be-farhesiya, i.e., public and notorious. With the eyes of the world focused not only upon the flight of the space shuttle but upon the Israeli crew member in particular, the actions of that individual were indeed public and were perceived as representative of the Jewish people as a whole.

(8) The issue of Sabbath observance aboard a space ship is a novel extension of the much older question of Sabbath observance in the polar regions and adjacent areas in which daylight and darkness extend for months at a time rather than alternating in periods of approximately twenty-four hours. Determination of the prescribed time for morning, afternoon and evening prayers as well as for other time-bound mizvot presents the identical problem. Jewish commercial travelers reached areas relatively close to the North Pole long before anyone, Jew or gentile, seriously dreamed of space travel.

(9) Those questions received serious attention but hardly unequivocal resolution either because of doubt engendered by disagreement with regard to the proper solution of the problem or because measurement of time at the antipodes and/or in space is a matter of intrinsic halakhic doubt to which there is no resolution. The rabbinic attitude vis-à-vis proper comportment in the polar regions is eloquently captured in a letter written in 1886 by Rabbi Simcha ha-Levi Bamberger to his son that is published in the former's responsa collection, Zekher Simḥah, no. 30. Rabbi Bamberger's son was considering a trip to Norway for some business purpose and consulted his father regarding the appropriateness of the halakhic ruling of an unnamed Norwegian rabbi with regard to Sabbath observance. After discussing the problem and offering his own opinion, Zekher Simḥah concludes: "However, all this is Halakhah but in practice my inclination is: Why should a person, even during weekdays, place himself in a state of doubt with regard to reading the Shema and prayer? At the minimum, do not remain in that country on Shabbat [where] there is doubt with regard to what to do. Nothing prevents God from bestowing blessing and success wherever your feet tread for good." A rabbinic decisor's fatherly advice and blessing to his son was to avoid halakhic doubt and find divine bounty elsewhere.

(10) II. R. Jacob Emden

(11) The first rabbinic authority to address the question of time at the polar regions was the eighteenth-century scholar R. Jacob Emden whose opinion gained wide currency due to its citation in Sha'arei Teshuvah, Oraḥ Hayyim 344:1. R. Jacob Emden is quoted in that source as ruling that "those traveling below the polar region where the day is prolonged into a month or two months and [in some places] six months should count six days of our twenty-four equal hours," i.e., the advent of Shabbat should be deemed to occur after six periods of twenty-four clock hours have elapsed. In context, the implication of Sha'arei Teshuvah's citation of R. Jacob Emden's view is certainly that the seventh cycle of twenty-four hours is to be regarded as Shabbat in every respect. However, a careful examination of R. Jacob Emden's comments in his Mor u-Kezi'ah 334 in their entirety reveals a certain ambiguity in Rabbi Emden's position. Mor u-Kezi'ah comments:

(12) It is necessary to reflect upon [the manner in which] those who dwell or travel in the lands near the poles should conduct themselves. For, in proportion to proximity [to the pole], the day becomes lengthened. There [are places in which] a month or two months and even longer may be a day to the extent that there exists a place where the day is prolonged to half a year and similarly the night is half a year. And under the pole there is no day and night at all; rather there is twilight [during] the entire year for in that place there is no sunrise or sunset because the [celestial] equator is its horizon. If so, how should they establish Shabbat there? It seems to me that there it is necessary to count seven equal days of twenty-four of our equal hours, and calculating from the day that one arrived there, one should count days by means of hours and sanctify the seventh in the manner mentioned earlier with regard to a traveler in the desert.

(13) Mor u-Kezi'ah's assertion that there is neither night nor day at the North Pole itself (or at any other place that might be denoted by the phrase "under the pole") because the sun never rises and never sets is simply an empirical error. It is true that a person standing at the North Pole who looks out over the horizon will observe all stars north of the equator because, at the North Pole, the celestial equator can be seen on the horizon. However, it is precisely at the North Pole that day and night are each six months in duration and at no place is there year round twilight. Assuming, however, that Mor u-Kezi'ah's description is factually accurate and that, in the absence of sunrise and sunset, the halakhic day is to be calculated as a period of twenty-four clock hours, it remains necessary to determine when the sequence of days begins in order to determine the seventh day of each weekly cycle. Logic would dictate that "time" at the North Pole began when time began for the rest of the planet. However, instead of being contingent upon a sequence of sunrises and sunsets, time at the North Pole is calculated by means of clock hours. If that is the case, then Shabbat should be observed on the North Pole on the same "day" that it is observed elsewhere in the globe although, to be sure, Shabbat would begin and end throughout the year at the same hour. In effect, the North Pole would have its own "local" time just as the day begins and concludes at every other geographic point on earth in accordance with its own local time. The sole difference being that "local" time at the North Pole is idiosyncratic in that it is to be determined by consulting the clock while elsewhere local time depends upon sunrise and sunset.

(14) But Mor u-Kezi'ah says something astoundingly different. He rules that the week commences with the arrival of the traveler who then counts six days before sanctifying the seventh. Apparently, every traveler begins calculating his own weekly cycle upon arrival regardless of which day of the week it might be elsewhere on the globe. The resultant situation is certainly anomalous: Not only do two travelers observe Shabbat on two different days but neither of them observe Shabbat on the day of the week on which it is observed by Jews elsewhere in the world!

(15) Moreover, Mor u-Kezi'ah rules that the identical procedure must be followed not only in fictitious places where the sun always shines but also in areas in which the cycles of daylight and darkness are a month, two months or six months in duration despite the fact that in those locales the phenomena of sunrise and sunset do occur, albeit at intervals that vary greatly from other places.

(16) It seems to this writer that the key to understanding the import of Mor u-Kezi'ah's ruling is in his concluding phrase: "and he sanctifies the seventh in the manner that has been mentioned earlier with regard to a traveler in the desert." If one reflects upon that comment for but a moment it seems to be entirely inappropos. To be sure, the rule codified in Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Hayyim 344:1, is that a traveler in the desert who becomes confused and no longer knows which day of the week it is counts six days and sanctifies the seventh. But the days that he counts are conventional solar days, not twenty-four hour clock days. Moreover, that halakhic provision in no way reflects the notion that the days of the week are to be determined in an arbitrary, subjective or individual manner. Quite to the contrary, doubt with regard to the identity of each day of the week—and hence the objective determination of Shabbat—is not at all dispelled by adoption of an arbitrary convention. For that reason, the rule as recorded by Shulḥan Arukh is that since the traveler remains in a quandary he must refrain from activity forbidden on Shabbat on each and every day. The traveler is permitted to perform any act necessary to sustain life and such acts are permitted even on the day that he observes as Shabbat. Thus, he may cook as much food as necessary to meet his minimum requirements on each day of the week, including the day that according to his arbitrary calculation is Saturday. He is also permitted to do whatever is necessary in order to emerge from the desert as quickly as possible so that he may return to proper Sabbath observance and he may engage in such travel even on the day that he observes as Shabbat. The confused traveler observes the day designated as the Sabbath solely through recitation of kiddush, havdalah and Shabbat prayers. Those observances are rabbinically ordained for the day designated by the traveler as his personal Sabbath lest the confused traveler forget the very concept of Shabbat.

(17) Application of that rabbinic decree to a hypothetical geographic area in which there is perpetual daylight is problematic to say the least. Its application to locales in which the day is inordinately long in duration is even more baffling. There is no hint in that rabbinic decree indicating that in a place where there is no sunrise or sunset the day is to be calculated as twenty-four clock hours in length and certainly no suggestion that where there is sunrise and sunset that the "days" cannot be weeks or months in duration. Moreover, the rabbinic decree is limited solely to matters of liturgy and ritual but does not permit transgression of even rabbinically ordained strictures on any day of the week.

(18) It seems to this writer that Mor u-Kezi'ah regarded the establishment of halakhic time, and hence of the Sabbath, in the places under discussion to be a matter of unresolvable doubt. To be sure, as clearly enunciated by R. David ibn Zimra, Teshuvot ha-Radvaz, I, no. 76, determination of the onset and conclusion of Shabbat is determined locally. Leviticus 23:3 mandates that the Sabbath be observed "in all your habitations." That phrase is understood by Radvaz as signifying that the onset and conclusion of Shabbat is to be determined in accordance with sunset at each particular "habitation." Shabbat is designed as a "sign between Me and between you" (Exodus 31:13) and accordingly, is to be observed during the period representing the culmination of six days of labor in each person's locale. The Sabbath day, which includes a period of darkness and a period of daylight, is roughly twenty-four hours in length in all places other than in the extreme northern and southern regions. As a result, the Sabbath is observed on the same day of the week in all parts of the globe. Accordingly, Mor u-Kezi'ah assumes that in locales in which that cannot be the case there is no discernible method for determining the days of the week. Hence, determination of the advent of Shabbat remains either a matter of irresolvable doubt or, alternatively, there is no concept of halakhic time in such places. Therefore, Mor u-Kezi'ah rules that a person finding himself in such a place faces a problem that is no different from that confronting a person lost in the desert or confused with regard to a sequence of days and must conduct himself in an identical manner. That is precisely the import of Mor u-Kezi'ah's concluding phrase "in the manner indicated earlier with regard to one who travels in the desert," i.e., he may perform no forbidden act on any day of the week and must recite kiddush and havdalah on the seventh day of every seven-day cycle subsequent to his arrival.

(19) But even that understanding of Mor u-Kezi'ah's position remains problematic if there is no halakhic time in such regions. Were that the case, there would be no Shabbat and hence no forbidden acts. Rabbinic legislation regarding kiddush and havdalah might well be cogent as a means of keeping the concept of Shabbat alive but the element of doubt that renders proscribed acts impermissible on any day that might possibly be Shabbat is not at all present in an area in which there is no time and hence no Shabbat. Accordingly, it would seem that Mor u-Kezi'ah should be understood as assuming that halakhic time does exist in the polar regions but that a method of calculating the passing of time in such areas is not available to us. Accordingly, all matters requiring a determination of time remain a matter of irresolvable doubt in such areas.

(20) Understood in this manner, Mor u-Kezi'ah's position is cogent but nevertheless open to objection. As a matter of general principle, rabbinic legislation was designed for the usual and the anticipated but milta de-lo shekhiḥa lo gazru bah rabbanan, the unusual and the unanticipated, are not subsumed within the ambit of rabbinic legislation. For the Sages, the possibility of becoming lost in a desert was certainly not farfetched; however, travel to the polar regions would not merely have been unanticipated but would have been inconceivable. Moreover, rabbinic legislation is to be interpreted on the basis of the principle of strict construction. Talmudic decrees apply only to specified conditions under specified circumstances. The Sages promulgated an edict requiring recitation of kiddush and havdalah in a situation in which the proper day for observance of the Shabbat is known to one and all with the exception of an isolated traveler who has become confused. Even the confused traveler is obligated to observance of the proper day as a matter of objective certainty; the problem is that he does not know what everyone else does know, viz., which day that is. Hence the Sages promulgated a decree requiring at least some form of observance for even this individual lest he become entirely desensitized to the notion of Shabbat.

(21) However, Shabbat in the polar regions is a matter of doubt for everyone. There is no evidence of a rabbinic decree requiring kiddush and havdalah on any day in a situation in which no one knows and no one can possibly know which day is Shabbat. Even though we might think it wise and spiritually edifying to legislate some form of positive Shabbat observance even is such circumstances, the notion of strict construction would lead to the conclusion that, since such a contingency is technically outside the parameters of existing rabbinic legislation, there is, in reality, no such obligation.

(22) There is a much more fundamental difficulty in understanding the view that Mor u-Kezi'ah apparently espouses. If halakhic time does exist even in the absence of sunrise and sunset but its calculation is always a matter of irresolvable doubt, it is not clear why such doubt does not persist even after the phenomena of sunset and sunrise reappear with the change of the seasons. Since there is no intrinsic reason why a single day must be twenty-four hours in duration, the "time" elapsed may be more or less than on the rest of the globe. If so, in any place in which there is no sunset or sunrise for any extended period during the year there is no way to gauge the period of time that elapses during that interval. Hence, the entire calendrical system in such a locale becomes subject to doubt that is generated during the period of constant daylight or constant darkness.

(23) That problem is even more severe than may appear to be the case. For Rabbenu Tam who maintains that zet ha-kokhavim, or night, occurs only when the sun's angle of declension is 16.1 degrees below the horizon there is no "night" during some days of June as far south as London. If one were to adopt the theory herein outlined all calculations of the days of the week as well as the dates of the month in areas north of fifty-two degrees latitude would, according to Rabbenu Tam, be subject to doubt. Indeed, the identical problem presents itself north of sixty degrees latitude, an area that includes places such as St. Petersburg, even according to those who disagree with Rabbenu Tam.

(24) III. Tiferet Yisra'el

(25) Perhaps the most widely cited source with regard to Sabbath observance at the North Pole is a note authored by the nineteenth-century authority R. Israel Lipschutz and published in his classic commentary on the Mishnah, Tiferet Yisra'el, as an addendum to his commentary on the first chapter of Berakhot. Tiferet Yisra'el carefully distinguishes between places such as his own city of Danzig, as well as Copenhagen and Stockholm, in which there is always at least a brief period of dusk, and places further north in which "there is no night at all but only daylight during the months of June and July." He also expresses concern with regard to people who sail close to the North Pole in order to catch "whalefish" because in that locale there are a number of months during the summer in which there is only daylight. Tiferet Yisra'el does not cite Mor u-Kezi'ah but adopts a position that is remarkably similar to that of R. Jacob Emden in one salient aspect. As did his predecessor, Tiferet Yisra'el rules that each twenty-four hour period constitutes a day. In support of that conclusion he draws upon the fact that the sun can be observed as completing a full circle above the horizon each twenty-four hour period. However, his position is fundamentally different from that of Mor u-Kezi'ah in that Tiferet Yisra'el maintains that the day is determined objectively rather than individually by each traveler. Thus throughout the year Shabbat occurs at the North Pole the same day as it does on the rest of the globe and is objectively determined by the "revolutions" of the sun in the sky. In the polar regions the sun is observed as moving in a circular pattern and completes a full circuit in the overhead sky every twenty-four hours. Each of those twenty-four hour circuits, maintains Tiferet Yisra'el, represents a single day. However, Tiferet Yisra'el fails to identify a phenomenon that might serve to demarcate successive days during the polar night when the sun is entirely concealed.

(26) Adoption of that thesis serves to establish the "day," i.e., the twenty-four hour period, on which Shabbat occurs but provides no method for determining when Shabbat begins or when it concludes. Nor does it provide a means by which one can determine the proper time for recitation of the Shema or the several daily prayers. Without citing evidence or precedent for his view, Tiferet Yisra'el opines that the traveler should adopt the clock of "the place from which he departed" (makom she-yaza mesham) in determining the beginning and end of each day and the various divisions thereof. There is some ambiguity with regard to Tiferet Yisra'el's precise meaning: Does "the place from which he departed" connote the locale of the traveler's former residence or his port of embarkation? A similar position is advanced by R. Pinchas Eliyahu Hurwitz, Sefer ha-Brit, I, ma'amar 4, chapter 11. With regard to a person who finds himself in the polar regions, Sefer ha-Brit declares that "after he counts six times twenty-four hours on the clock he should make Shabbat." Sefer ha-Brit presumably means that the clock to be used for this purpose is one that shows the current time at the port of embarkation.

(27) Tiferet Yisra'el himself notes one resultant incongruity: A traveler arriving at the North Pole from England and a traveler arriving from America would both observe Shabbat on the same "day" but at different hours. The European would recite kiddush while the American might legitimately perform all manner of labor; some twenty-four hours later the European would recite havdalah while the American is engaged in the recitation of the Shabbat minḥah service. One can only ponder the situation of children born to an American man who marries a European woman at the North Pole. When does Shabbat begin and end for the children of that marriage? The issue is not one of custom, with regard to which the father's custom prevails, but one of law. There seems to be no reason why, normatively, children should be governed by one parent's clock rather than by the clock of the other parent. Indeed, that situation serves to highlight the underlying problem, viz., why should children be governed by their parents' clock? The time reflected by that clock is neither the time of the child's prior residence nor of the child's port of embarkation. Indeed, by what reason is the traveler himself governed by the clock of his place of embarkation or of previous domicile?

(28) At least in part because of this incongruity, Tiferet Yisra'el recognizes that infractions of Sabbath prohibitions in the polar area do not occasion statutory punishment. The phraseology employed by Tiferet Yisra'el may be readily understood as implying that Tiferet Yisra'el recognizes that Shabbat observance in the polar area in the manner that he describes is not biblically mandated but is in the form of a rabbinic obligation, presumably similar to that of a person who loses track of time in a desert.

(29) Putting aside the question of how the beginning and end of each day is to be determined as well as the question of whether Sabbath obligations in such areas are binding by virtue of biblical law or rabbinic decree, Tiferet Yisra'el's basic position, i.e., that the passing of days is to be calculated on the basis of twenty-four hour periods, is accepted, in addition to R. Jacob Emden, by R. Chaim Joseph David Azulai, Maḥazik Berakhah 344:4; Sha'arei Teshuvah, Oraḥ Hayyim 344:1; R. Jehoseph Schwartz, Teshuvot Divrei Yosef, no. 8; Sefer ha-Brit, I, ma'amar 4, chap. 10; Teshuvot Rav Pe'alim, II, Sod Yesharim, no. 4; Kaf ha-Hayyim, Oraḥ Hayyim 344:2; R. Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky, Bein ha-Shemashot (Jerusalem, 5789), p. 55; R. Yechiel Michal Gold, Me'asef le-Khol ha-Maḥanot, Oraḥ Hayyim 18:25; and R. David Spira, Teshuvot Bnei Ẓion, Kuntres Midot ha-Yom, secs. 21-23; R. Mordecai Winkler, Teshuvot Levushei Mordekhai, Mahadura Tinyana, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 47; R. Ovadiah Hedaya, Teshuvot Yaskil Avdi, VIII, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 22, sec. 9:7; R. Chaim Zimmerman, Agan ha-Sohar (New York, 5715), p. 437; and R. Betzalel Stern, Ahalekh be-Amitekha (Jerusalem, 5752), 30:16.

(30) IV. An Unconsidered View

(31) Tiferet Yisra'el cites no evidence in support of his view. The phenomenon of the sun's circular movement over the horizon each day is certainly not a demonstration that each twenty-four hour period in which such a revolution takes place constitutes a halakhic day. Quite to the contrary, Scripture records "and it was evening, and it was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5). Read literally, the day is defined in terms of alternating periods of light and darkness, not in terms of a revolution of the earth upon its axis or of the circuitous movement of the overhead sun. How this might have occurred prior to the creation of the sun on the third day is a matter that has engaged the attention of numerous biblical commentators, most particularly, Rambam and Seforno, Genesis 1:5; Rabbenu Baḥya, Genesis 1:13; Rashbam, Genesis 1:4 and 1:14; R. Isaac Arama, Akeidat Yizḥak, sha'ar shlishi; and Malbim, Genesis 1:5.

(32) This concept also appears to be reflected in the words of Pesikta Rabbati 15:1. Citing the verse "Who appoints the moon for seasons; the sun knows its going down" (Psalms 104:19), Pesikta Rabbati comments, "Because 'the sun know its going down'—from here [it is derived] that we do not calculate according to the moon unless the sun has set." In context, Pesikta Rabbati declares that even though the nascent moon has been sighted a new month does not begin until the sun sets. The import of that statement would certainly seem to be that a new day can begin only upon the actual setting of the sun.

(33) There is another way of viewing the passing of days at the poles, a method that is simple and obvious in conception but entirely strange in application. As noted earlier, there is strong reason to assume that the halakhic day is demarcated by sunset and sunrise. There is no obvious reason for assuming that a day must be approximately twenty-four hours in duration. If so, it might readily be argued that a day should always be defined as the period that elapses between one sunset and the next sunset, regardless of how many hours have elapsed between those two phenomena. Thus, if at the North Pole a single sunset is followed by six months of darkness and those six months of darkness are followed by six months of daylight culminating in the next sunset, the length of a "day" at the North Pole is equal to a full year. After six such days elapse the following "day" of twelve months duration would be Shabbat. According to that theory, Shabbat would occur at the North Pole only once in seven years but would last for an entire "sabbatical" year. Calculation of the sequence of those year-long days would begin no later than from the creation of the sun.

(34) Application of the same theory to other areas in the far north where a summer "day," i.e., the period between one sunset and the next may be, for example, two months in duration, would result in considering that two-month period to be a single day within the seven day cycle of a "week." Shabbat would then be determined by recalculating the sequence of the days of the week by taking the two-month day into consideration as a single day. Those calculations would also have to be refigured from the day of creation. The result would be highly inconvenient to say the least, both because Shabbat would not be observed on the same day as it is observed on the rest of the globe and because observance of Shabbat would fluctuate each year from one day of the week to another.

(35) It should also be pointed out that adoption of this thesis leads to the result that, according to Rabbenu Tam, Shabbat may not coincide with Saturday even in areas as far south as London. On days that the sun does not decline at least 16.1 degrees below the horizon it is, according to Rabbenu Tam, at least doubtful whether a new day has begun. If a new day has not begun, then the entire period during which the sun does not decline 16.1 degrees is part of a single day and, accordingly, the ensuing Shabbat, and all future Sabbath days, must be calculated on the basis of that consideration.

(36) Fortuitously, a thesis of this nature has not been espoused by any scholar. However, an unnamed interlocutor whose comments are recorded by R. Jehoseph Schwartz, Teshuvot Divrei Yosef (Jerusalem, 5622), no. 8, did formulate such a view. That scholar adduces a statement found in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eli'ezer, chapter 52, in support of this view. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eli'ezer, commenting upon the phenomenon described in Joshua 10:13, maintains that Joshua caused the sun to remain in a fixed position in the sky for a period of twenty-four hours and that the miracle was performed by Joshua on a Friday. That entire period was regarded as a weekday rather than as Shabbat, thereby enabling completion of the military engagement without desecration of the Sabbath. The anonymous scholar is reported to have cited those comments as suggestive of the notion that a day may be of indeterminate length.

(37) Divrei Yosef dismisses this argument by citing the full comment of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eli'ezer which indicates that Joshua interfered not only with the motion of the sun but also with the motion of the other luminaries, i.e., the moon and the stars. That statement, asserts Divrei Yosef, demonstrates that not only the sun but all the celestial bodies remained suspended in the sky. Hence, in effect, Joshua caused time to be suspended. That phenomenon, declares Divrei Yosef, is quite different from the purely local phenomenon that occurs at the North Pole.

(38) The anonymous interlocutor is further quoted as rejecting his own proposed thesis because the Palestinian Talmud, Kelayim 9:13 and Ketubot 12:3, reports that a similar phenomenon occurred on the Friday on which the funeral of R. Judah the Prince took place. However, the Palestinian Talmud reports that on that occasion the participants in the funeral considered themselves to have desecrated the Sabbath. The latter statement, he argues, establishes that the demarcation of successive days does not necessarily depend upon the declension of the sun below the horizon.

(39) The reason why such a thesis does not merit consideration is not immediately evident, particularly if there is no intrinsic reason why a day must be approximately twenty-four hours in duration. The only reason that suggests itself to this writer is that, although the beginning and end of a day and intermediate divisions of the day certainly depend upon local sundown and sunrise, the identity of any given day is the same throughout the globe with the minor exception presented by the necessary adjustment for the dateline. The dateline phenomenon is not an exception to the basic principle because that phenomenon is the logical result of the movement of the sun as perceived in all places throughout the globe except for the polar areas. The notion that in one locale it may be Shabbat while in another it may be some time on Friday and in another locale it may be some time on Sunday is readily understood. But a thesis that will posit that Shabbat can occur in some geographic area on a day that is, for example, Wednesday elsewhere is incompatible with the very nature of a calendrical system.

(40) V. An Alternative View

(41) There is however another possibility that, to this writer, seems to be the most cogent way of viewing "time" in the polar regions. It may be suggested that in the absence of the halakhic criteria of sunset and sunrise there is no halakhic day and hence no halakhic time. Locales in which that is the case have no time because they "transcend" time. The result would be that obligations with regard to time-bound mizvot are simply non-existent in such places.

(42) Thus, since a day is defined as the period between sunset and the following sunset, allowing for variation in its beginning and end, the day of the week is the same throughout the globe. Since sunset and sunrise do not occur in approximately twenty-four hour sequences in the polar areas, any particular polar day could not be identified as the same day of the week recognized in other locales. Accordingly, there is no "day" at the North Pole and hence there are no festivals. Since there is no day to be divided into hours, there is no obligation with regard to reciting the Shema or any of the time-bound prayers.

(43) This is true also in northern areas below the North Pole in which the summer day and the summer night are weeks or even months in duration. But this is true only during those periods of prolonged daylight and prolonged darkness. During the periods of the year in which there is sunrise and sunset, regardless of the brevity of the day or night, time-bound mizvot are fully binding and the day of the week as well as the date in those areas is identical to the day and the date everywhere else on the globe.

(44) In order to appreciate this concept fully it is helpful to think of time as a "place." A person in outer space or a person near the polar region in which a single day extends for a period much longer than twenty-four hours "transcends" time and hence is "outside" the "place" called Shabbat. When the same traveler returns to earth, when the person in the polar area travels out of that region, or when summer or winter becomes fall or spring in the polar region, the individual has in effect "reentered" the place called "time." He reenters an objectively defined time that is identical for him and for all other individuals. The term "sunset" is used to denote the end of the day. Whether the day ends at sunset or at zet ha-kokhavim, i.e., when it is actually night as evidenced by the appearance of stars is, of course, a matter of halakhic doubt. Hence, there will be locales in which obligations with regard to observance of time-bound mizvot will be a matter of parallel doubt, i.e., in areas in which, on some days during the year, the sun sets but does not decline below the horizon sufficiently for it actually to become night, the very existence of time is doubtful and hence the obligation with regard to time-bound mizvot becomes a matter of doubt.

(45) According to this thesis, the days that elapse elsewhere on earth during the periods of prolonged polar daylight and darkness which are not halakhically recognized as "days" have no effect on subsequent calculation of time in the polar areas. Similarly, the calendrical system is unaffected in those areas during other periods of the year. There is no "time" in those areas either the entire year or for portions of the year, depending upon proximity to the pole, because those areas are le-ma'alah min hazman, i.e., in those areas time is transcended. But the reappearance of the phenomena of sunrise and sunset in those areas signifies a return to the realm of time. Moreover, those locales return to the spot on the continuum of time that is shared by the entire globe.

(46) Metaphorically, the matter can be compared to a group of people seated together on a carousel moving round and round in a circle. If one of the group gets off the moving carousel he is no longer in motion or in any way subject to motion. Nevertheless, the person exiting the carousel can observe his companions and, although he is a spectator who "transcends" their motion, he can be fully cognizant of their continued circular movement. If he stands outside and waits while the carousel completes one or more "revolutions" or circuits and then rejoins his companions at the same spot on the carousel at which he left them on an earlier circuit he will continue to ride with them in precisely the same spot as he would have ridden had he never exited from the carousel.

(47) It is also possible that time may not only be transcended by a space traveler or in the polar regions but that, at times, all of planet Earth may transcend time. The import of that notion is that time, once created, enjoys an independent ontological existence even when time is nowhere manifest. Time, under such circumstances, would continue to march and Earth, when it returns from its state of transcendence, would return to the spot on the continuum of time that it would have occupied had it not temporarily transcended time.

(48) Strange as that thesis may appear, it serves, in this writer's opinion, to explain two difficult aggadic statements that have long been a source of puzzlement. Scripture records that in the war against Gibeon undertaken by Joshua the sun stood still in the sky in order to enable the conquest to become complete: "And the sun stood still and the moon stayed until the nation avenged itself of the enemies … and the sun stayed in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for a whole day" (Joshua 10:13). Based upon differing interpretations of that verse, the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 25a, records a dispute with regard to whether that "day," i.e., the hours of daylight, was twenty-four, thirty-six or forty-eight hours in duration. In Avodah Zarah 25a there is no hint that the entire time period described together with the normal period of darkness counted for other than a single calendar day. However, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eli'ezer, chapter 52, adopts the view that the sun shone for thirty-six hours and reports that the battle occurred on Friday "and Joshua saw the anguish of Israel lest they desecrate the Sabbath … and each [of the luminaries] remained stationary for thirty-six hours until the conclusion of the Sabbath."

(49) Pirkei de-Rabbi Eli'ezer obviously maintains that the additional twenty-four hours of daylight were not "extra-calendrical." Nevertheless, although that twenty-four hour period corresponded to the Shabbat day, Sabbath restrictions were not incumbent upon Jews during that period. When the sun did set, it was at the "conclusion of the Sabbath." It must therefore be concluded that during the twenty-four hour period during which the sun remained in the sky, time was not suspended but was "transcended." Since all of Earth was affected, time was transcended by the entire planet. Moreover, when the sun did set, Earth returned to normal patterns of time and did so as if there had been no interruption in the flow of time.

(50) In addition, a number of sources, including the Palestinian Talmud, Berakhot 8:6; Bereishit Rabbah 11:2, 12:6 and 82:17; Midrash Tehillim 92:4; and Pesikta Rabbati 23:6, record that there was no period of darkness during the very first Sabbath which came after the six days of creation; rather, there was a period of thirty-six hours of daylight followed by nightfall marking the conclusion of the Sabbath day. Yet that thirty-six hour period included a "day" deemed to be the Sabbath and was followed by a day deemed to be the first day of the following week. Again, it may be postulated that terrestrial time was temporarily transcended rather than suspended and that, when normal time patterns based upon alternating periods of light and darkness marked by sunrise and sunset resumed, time continued as if it had not been interrupted.

(51) It must then be presumed that whenever alternating periods of day-light and darkness of approximately twenty-four hours in length do not occur "time" does not exist, but when such alternating periods are reestablished the reckoning of temporal sequence must take into account the "time" that would have elapsed under normal conditions.

(52) The notion that a Jew in outer space or in the polar areas is exempt from even some mizvot has been branded far-fetched or worse by a number of rabbinic writers. Indeed, one can readily empathize with that reaction and, despite the fact that the alternative theses that have been advanced seem to be at least as far-fetched, this writer would not have the temerity to advance that thesis without at least minimal support. Support for this view is found in the writings of an anonymous scholar quoted by R. Joseph Mashash, Teshuvot Mayim Hayyim, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 111. Rabbi Mashash reports that he was shown a manuscript authored by an unnamed scholar described as "one of the sages of the generation." That scholar is certain that persons finding themselves in such locales are exempt from Sabbath observance "because the Torah predicated the matter upon days, as it is written 'six days shall you labor and on the seventh you shall rest' (Exodus 34:21). Unless otherwise specified, "days" are composed of twenty-four hours. Since [in the polar regions] there are no days, there is no Shabbat there." Although Rabbi Mashash cites this view only to disagree with it, this writer finds the thesis advanced by this anonymous scholar to be entirely cogent and finds it instructive that neither Rabbi Mashash nor any other scholar has advanced evidence to counter that view.

(53) VI. Orbiting the Earth

(54) If there is no obligation with regard to time-bound mizvot in the polar regions because a person finding himself in such a locale has transcended time, the same is certainly true for a person on a space journey. If there is no halakhic time in the polar regions, a fortiori, there is no halakhic time in outer space. Outer space is literally "above" time, i.e., an area that is transcendental to time. Thus, although other mizvot are personal in nature and hence, in this writer's opinion, fully binding even in outer space time-bound mizvot are not at all binding in celestial regions. Time-bound mizvot can no more be binding "above" or "outside" time than can mizvot contingent upon the sanctity of the land of Israel be biblically binding outside the confines of that country.

(55) That, however, is not the situation of the Jewish astronaut circumnavigating the planet in earth orbit. Sefer ha-Brit, cited by J. D. Eisenstein, Ozar Yisra'el (New York, 1952), V, 112, poses an intriguing question: If, upon conclusion of Shabbat, a person ascends to the sky in a "flying balloon" and there finds the sky to be illuminated, may he engage in forbidden acts of labor? The answer would appear to be that, despite the fact that this dirigible or airplane traveler observes a sun that has not yet set, i.e., a sun that is visible to him as he looks across his horizon, he is in no way bound by Sabbath restrictions.

(56) The basic principle is that for all halakhic purposes time is calculated at ground level. The Gemara, Shabbat 118b, reports that R. Jose exclaimed, "May my lot be with those who inaugurate the Shabbat in Tiberias and with those who end the Shabbat in Sepphoris (Zippori)." Reflected in the words of R. Jose is the notion that Shabbat begins earlier in Tiberias than it does in Sepphoris and consequently ends in Sepphoris later than in Tiberias. R. Jose followed the "clock" of Tiberias and began observance of the Sabbath earlier than required in the locale in which he found himself and followed the clock of Sepphoris is concluding the Sabbath later than required in the locale in which he found himself. R. Jose was practicing tosefet Shabbat, i.e., he was adding to the duration of his observance of the Sabbath. That practice is praise-worthy and deserving of reward.

(57) Teshuvot Ri mi-Gash, no. 45, observes that Tiberias and Sepphoris are really in close proximity to one another but that Tiberias is in a valley and Sepphoris is located at the top of a mountain. For that reason there was a significant discrepancy in the time of sunset in those two cities. The higher one's elevation the more one can see of the curvature of the earth with the result that a person at the top of a mountain will not see the declining sun disappear from sight until sometime after the sun is observed to have set below the horizon by a person standing at the base of the mountain. The Gemara's statement indicates that Shabbat begins later in Sepphoris than it does in Tiberias because sunset—and hence time—is determined at ground level. Ground level is not uniform; rather it depends upon the topography of the area and hence may be represented by the bed of the valley or the top of the mountain. Accordingly, the beginning and the end of the day at the mountain top is different from the beginning and the end of the day in the valley.

(58) But Shabbat for a person in a tower or on the roof of a tall building does not begin later than it does for a person standing in the street. Sunset is determined by observation at ground level but the time established in that manner is normative ad coelum. Thus, R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Hayyim, III, no. 96, s.v. u-le-inyan, states unequivocally that an airplane traveler must determine the time for prayer on the basis of sunrise and sunset as observed at ground level. Hence if it is no longer Shabbat on the ground it is also no longer Shabbat in a dirigible or airplane flying above that spot. If that is true for an airplane passenger flying 35,000 feet above the ground it should also be true for a person in earth orbit higher in the sky. To be sure, once a person travels significantly beyond that point he is no longer "above" the earth or above a place in which conventional time exists; at that point he "transcends" time. But so long as he is in orbit it seems clear that he is indeed above an identifiable spot on earth and, accordingly, at any given moment time in the spaceship is identical to time at the spot that he is overflying.

(59) For the Jewish astronaut orbiting earth, the day of the week is the same as it is on earth. But as he orbits earth every ninety minutes he will at one moment find himself over a geographic point where the Sabbath has already concluded but, since he is flying faster than earth's rotation, some minutes later he will find himself overflying a place where it is still Shabbat. That cycle can repeat itself over and over again in the course of a single Shabbat.

(60) To take an example involving two cities familiar to everyone, an astronaut may find himself over New York at 1:00 P.M. Shabbat afternoon. At that moment it is 8:00 P.M. in Jerusalem. The astronaut will have completed shaḥarit and musaf prayers, will have recited kiddush and eaten the Sabbath meal. Approximately one hour later, traveling east to west and circumventing the globe every ninety minutes, he will be over Jerusalem. In Jerusalem it is 9:00 P.M. while in New York it is 2:00 P.M. Since it is after the conclusion of Shabbat the astronaut will recite havdalah. But approximately one half-hour later the astronaut will again be over New York at 2:30 P.M. New York time. Since he has flown back into an area in which it is Shabbat, all restrictions upon performing prohibited acts of labor are binding upon him. Those cycles repeat themselves throughout the day and obviously apply not only to New York and Jerusalem, cities that are given only for purposes of illustration, but to all points on the globe.

(61) The strangeness of the result has led at least one scholar adopt a differing position. Nevertheless, it seems to this writer that the astronaut may perform acts of labor while overflying areas in which it is already night but is forbidden to perform such acts while overflying areas in which there is yet daylight and that in the course of a single day he will experience multiple alternating periods during which he is permitted to perform such acts and periods during which he is forbidden to do so.

(62) This result notwithstanding, there is no reason why the astronaut should be required to recite kiddush or to offer any of the statutory prayers more than once during the course of a day. The astronaut is, in effect, "leaving" and "reentering" an identifiable day; having discharged the obligation of kiddush or prayer for that day, there is no factor that would generate a new obligation for that day.

(63) The foregoing is predicated upon the thesis that Shabbat is determined entirely by the geographic area in which a person find himself and hence if a person could somehow travel from a place where it is Shabbat to a place where it is a weekday he might cease observance of Shabbat even though he has not experienced nightfall. Thus, R. Kalman Kahana, Ha-Ish ve-Hazono (Tel Aviv, 5724), p. 100, writes that Hazon Ish declared that a person who, in the course of traveling by ship from east to west, crosses the halakhic dateline sometime during Shabbat may cease observance of the Sabbath and must observe the following day as Shabbat. Similarly, a person traveling from west to east who crosses the dateline on Shabbat, and is then on the eastern side of the dateline where it is Sunday, may cease observance of Shabbat entirely and not observe Shabbat again until the end of the week. Hazon Ish refuses to distinguish between a traveler and a permanent resident or between a person who intends to return to his port of embarkation and a person who has no such intention "for Shabbat was given to man at the place where he is." Hazon Ish sees no difference between that situation and the situation of a traveler who crosses the dateline. A traveler commences and ceases observance of Shabbat on the basis of the time of sunset in the locale in which he finds himself rather than on the basis of the time of sunset at his place of residence. Similarly, R. Betzalel Stern, Teshuvot Be-Ẓel ha-Hokhmah, IV, no. 83, assumes as a matter of course that a traveler crossing the halakhic dateline from west to east on Sunday must observe the balance of the day as Shabbat.

(64) R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Hayyim, III, no. 96, and Be-Ẓel ha-Hokhmah, I, no. 31, sec. 8, similarly rule that a person traveling by plane from west to east on Tish'ah be-Av may break his fast as soon as he experiences nightfall even though he has not fasted a full twenty-four hour period. The same principle would apply to determining the onset of the eighth day for purposes of circumcision of an infant, for determining the proper time for a woman's immersion in a mikveh and for various other halakhic matters. In each of those cases there is no reason why a person may not embark upon a trip in which such a phenomenon will occur. That would also appear to be the case with regard to crossing the dateline in circumstances in which the duration of the traveler's observance of Shabbat or of his fast will be diminished.

(65) In a similar vein, R. David Menachem Babad, Teshuvot Havazelet ha-Sharon, I, Yoreh De'ah, no. 47, points out that a child becomes a bar mizvah on his thirteenth birthday wherever he may find himself even though he may no longer be in the city of his birth and even though in the place of his birth it may still be the previous day. Havazelet ha-Sharon applies the same general principle in permitting the slaughter of a calf immediately after nightfall following the day on which its mother was slaughtered even though the calf may be in a locale in which nightfall occurs while it is still day in the locale in which the mother was slaughtered. The same principle is applied by R. Eliezer Chaim Deutsch, Teshuvot Duda'ei ha-Sadeh, no. 25, to observance of a yahrzeit and by R. Alter Saul Pfeffer, Teshuvot Avnei Zikaron, II, no. 87, sec. 1, to observance of laws of mourning.

(66) However, R. Aryeh Zevi Frommer, Teshuvot Erez Ẓevi, I, no. 44, adopts a somewhat different position with regard to observance of Shabbat. Citing Avnei Nezer, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 89, Erez Ẓevi asserts that the obligations pertaining to Sabbath observance throughout the entire Sabbath day become effective at the very beginning of the day. Accordingly, he rules that a person who is in a place where it becomes Shabbat at nightfall becomes obligated to observe the entire ensuing twenty-four hour period as Shabbat even if he crosses the dateline during that period.

(67) Despite the weight of opinion to the contrary, R. Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, I, Bereishit 1:430, expresses doubt with regard to this matter. Without citing sources, he suggests that Shabbat observance requires the observance of a period of a full twenty-four hours. He further argues that on Yom Kippur a fast of a full twenty-four hours is required by virtue of the fact that Scripture requires that on Yom Kippur "you shall afflict yourselves" and proceeds to prescribe the observance of Yom Kippur "from evening to evening" (Leviticus 23:32). That position is reiterated by Rabbi Kasher in his Kav ha-Ta'arikh ha-Yisra'eli, chapter 58. In chapter 73 of the same work Rabbi Kasher reiterates that view with a slight variation: he questions whether performance of a forbidden act of labor under such circumstances involves a capital transgression or if it is only a negation of the positive obligation to rest on the seventh day. Elsewhere in Kav ha-Ta'arikh ha-Yisra'eli, chapters 39 and 53, Rabbi Kasher argues that there is a "personal" Shabbat at the end of every seven day cycle that is independent of solar phenomena. In chapter 53 he argues that observance of that "personal" Sabbath is mandated solely by the positive commandment regarding rest on the seventh day but not by the negative prohibitions entailing capital punishment.

(68) VII. Prayer in the Polar Regions

(69) How are the proper times for recitation of the thrice-daily prayers determined in the polar regions? That problem is more complex than determining the beginning and end of each day of the week because the stated time for shaḥarit is after dawn and the stated time for ma'ariv is after the appearance of stars. The primary issue is whether, for purposes of prayer, day is defined in terms of light and whether night, for purposes of prayer, is defined in terms of darkness. If so, there can be no opportunity for ma'ariv during the polar summer and no opportunity for shaḥarit (or minḥah) during the polar winter. Moreover, since in the polar regions, summer is one long day and winter is one long night, shaḥarit would be recited only once during the summer and ma'ariv but once during the winter.

(70) On the other hand, with regard to the determination of day and night, dawn and the appearance of stars may not be definitional but simply emblematic, i.e., dawn and the appearance of stars may simply be visual phenomena signifying the advent of day and night but, objectively speaking, day and night may not be integrally associated with light and darkness. If so, there may be alternative ways of determining the beginning and end of each day and of each night.

(71) It is precisely this question that is formulated by R. Elchanan Wasserman, Kovez Shi'urim, Pesaḥim, sec. 2, and which is the subject of further discussion by R. Shlomoh Heiman, Hiddushei R. Shlomoh: Ketavim u-Teshuvot, no. 19. Those views are cited by R. Abraham Israel Rosenthal, Ke-Moze Shallal Rav (Jerusalem, 5758), I, 22-24. The primary halakhic ramification arises in the context of a judicial proceeding in which it is necessary to determine the precise time of the commencement of night. The problem arises in a situation in which, instead of two witnesses coming forward to testify to the appearance of three stars, three different sets of witnesses appear and each one testifies to the appearance of a different star. The rule is that witnesses must testify to an entire "matter" rather than to "half a matter" (davar ve-lo ḥazi davar). It is because of that rule of evidence that, since halakhic majority is contingent not simply upon age but also upon the presence of two pubic hairs, a single set of witnesses must testify to the presence of both hairs. But, that rule of evidence notwithstanding, testimony of different sets of witnesses may be combined in order to establish that three years of adverse possession have elapsed. Shitah Mekubbezet, Bava Batra 56b, explains that pubic hair constitutes the essence of adulthood. Hence two hairs constitutes a single "matter" (davar) and therefore their presence must be established by a single pair of witnesses. In contradistinction, adverse possession does not serve to generate title but, in Jewish law, is merely evidence of title. Since adverse possession is not a "matter" but merely evidence of a "matter," separate sets of witnesses may testify to different periods of adverse possession.

(72) Similarly, if the presence of stars constitutes the essence of night, with the result that "night" and the presence of three starts are tautologous concepts, the evidence of the advent of all three stars must be established by a single set of witnesses. If, on the other hand, the appearance of stars is merely evidence of the arrival of night, the presence of each star might be established by a different set of witnesses.

(73) R. Elchanan resolves this quandary by pointing to biblical verses. Stars were created together with other celestial bodies on the fourth day. Nevertheless, Scripture declares, "And it was evening, and it was morning, one day." But how can there be "evening" in the absence of stars? Obviously, declares R. Elchanan, "evening" must be a phenomenon that can occur independently of the appearance of stars! The presence of stars in determining "night" is emblematic rather than causative or performative. R. Shlomoh Heiman endeavors to rebut that proof: A eunuch never develops pubic hair. But, despite the fact that pubic hair is the causative factor of adulthood, at the age of twenty the eunuch is declared to have retroactively achieved halakhic maturity at the age of thirteen. Similarly, suggests R. Shlomoh, the "evening" of each of the first three days of Creation may have been established retroactively with the appearance of stars on the fourth day. It should also be noted that Rashbam comments upon the fact that Scripture employs the term "evening" rather than "night" and proceeds to explain that the term "day" in that context is not at all to be understood in the conventional sense of the term.

(74) According to R. Elchanan there is no question that determination of "day" and "night" is not absolutely contingent upon dawn and darkness. The sole issues are whether there are discrete days during the solar summer and the solar winter and, if so, when does each day begin. Once the beginning of each day is determined, the intervening period is divided into twelve hours of "day" and twelve hours of "night." Hence, according to Divrei Yosef, each day of the polar summer begins when the sun returns to the point in the sky it occupied at the time of its first appearance in the spring; during the polar winter each night is similarly determined by the rotation of stars in the sky. Similarly, if R. Jacob Emden and Tiferet Yisra'el, as well as the numerous authorities cited earlier who maintain that the passing of days is to be calculated on the basis of twenty-four hour periods, are understood as asserting that "days" are to be calculated on the basis of twenty-four hour periods with the times of sunrise and sunset determined at the point of embarkation or at some other locale, the appropriate time periods for the various prayers would also be determined on the basis of those calculations. Ben Ish Hai, in his Teshuvot Rav Pe'alim, II, sod yesharim, no. 4, also espouses the view of R. Jehoseph Schwartz in his Teshuvot Divrei Yosef to the effect that the passing of days during the the polar summer and winter is to be calculated on the basis of twenty-four hour periods. Rav Pe'alim, however, asserts that night "begins at the time that night and day commence at the equator," i.e., night begins at 6:00 P.M. and day beings at 6:00 A.M., and that the times for the various prayers are also to be determined on the basis of that presumption. The problem is that at the North Pole all time zones converge making the adoption of an equatorial clock impossible.

(75) According to Mo'adim u-Zemanim, during the polar summer there are twenty-four hour "days" but "nights" of only a split second in duration and, presumably, during the polar winter there are "nights" of twenty-four hours and "days" of only a split second in duration. If so, one would recite shaḥarit and minḥah during the summer in the normal manner and ma'ariv during the period of plag ha-minḥah and recite only ma'ariv during the winter.

(76) If, however, R. Jacob Emden and Tiferet Yisra'el are to be understood as asserting that there is no demonstrable method for determining the passing of days in the polar regions, it follows that, because of the irresolvable doubt, no prayers should be recited.

(77) According to what has earlier been described as "an unconsidered view," the polar summer would constitute one long day and necessitate recitation of but one shaḥarit and one minḥah while the polar winter would constitute one long night necessitating but a single ma'ariv. According to the earlier formulated "alternative view," during the months in question there is no "time" in the polar regions with the result that no time-bound mizvot can be performed.

(78) In terms of practice, a person finding himself in a polar area would be well advised to avail himself of the option provided by Halakhah for the offering of voluntary prayers (tefillot nedavah). The traveler should then determine the hours during which the various prayers may be offered according to the opinions of Tiferet Yisra'el, Teshuvot Divrei Yosef and Mo'adim u-Zemanim and recite the shemoneh esreh prayer during those periods. However, before reciting the shemoneh esreh he should stipulate that it is his intention that, if the hour is not appropriate for the offering of statutory prayer, the prayer is offered as an optional prayer. That expedient, however, is not available for recitation of the various other blessings that constitute part of the morning and evening services.

(79) Recitation of keri'at Shema for the purpose of fulfilling the biblical commandment also requires determination of the beginning and end of each day and of each night. However, note should be taken of the rather curious and singular position of R. Chaim Eleazar Shapiro, Teshuvot Minḥat Elazar, IV, no. 42, to the effect that the proper time for recitation of keri'at Shema is to be determined by a literal reading of the verse "when you lie down and when you rise" and hence that the appropriate time for the recitation of Shema in the morning is established uniformly by clock hours rather than by astronomical hours, i.e., even the "sons of kings" arise by nine o'clock each day throughout the year. Thus, on each "day" keri'at Shema must be recited by nine o'clock. However, Minḥat Elazar's position does not entail the conclusion that people who customarily arise before dawn may recite keri'at Shema before the advent of the new day. Therefore, since the manner of determining the time at which "dawn" occurs during the polar summer and winter is problematic, the question of determining the proper time for recitation of keri'at Shema in the polar areas remains unresolved. Similarly, although keri'at Shema must be recited in the evening "when you lie down," there is no obligation to recite keri'at Shema anew each time one goes to sleep during the course of a single night.

(80) More obscure, but of no more help in resolving the problem of recitation of keri'at Shema in the polar areas, is the position of R. Ya'akov Shalom Sofer, Torat Hayyim (Budapest, 5764) 235:3, who advances the thesis that in places in which there is a "short night" the evening Shema may be recited "when you lie down," i.e., after 6:00 P.M. A similar view is advanced by R. Moshe Sternbuch in a note appended to his Mo'adim u-Zemanim, II, no. 155 with regard to recitation of keri'at Shema both in the morning and in the evening.

(81) VIII. An Afterword

(82) The foregoing is an attempt to formulate the normative rules for a Jew finding himself in the polar areas or orbiting earth. Whether a Jew should seek to place himself in such a situation is an entirely different matter. Zekher Simḥah's advice to his son is worthy of citation in regard to that issue. Zekher Simḥah finds a comment of the Gemara, Berakhot 31a, to be instructive with regard to the situation in which his son found himself:

(83) Mari the grandson of R. Huna the son of R. Jeremiah the son of Abba taught: A person should not take leave of his fellow other than with a matter of Halakhah for thereby he will remember him. R. Kahana escorted R. Shimi the son of Ashi from Pum Nahara to Be-Zenyata of Babylonia. When he arrived there he said to him… "What is meant by the verse 'Through a land that no man had passed through and where no man dwelt' (Jeremiah 2:6)? Since no one passed through, how could anyone dwell? It is to teach you that any land which Adam decreed should be inhabited is inhabited and any land which Adam decreed should not be inhabited is not inhabited."

(84) The comment does indeed serve to illuminate the meaning of the scriptural passage but does not at all appear to illustrate any matter of halakhic import. Yet the comment is cited as an anecdote in illustration of the dictum counseling that one should part from a friend with "a matter of Halakhah," not with a matter of scriptural interpretation or an aggadic bon mot.

(85) Zekher Simḥah regards the statement of the Gemara as reflecting a matter having halakhic import: Adam decreed that only areas in which mizvot might be observed should be inhabited; he decreed that areas in which mizvot are not fully binding should remain desolate and uninhabited. The halakhic moral is simple. Man should seek to maximize the opportunities for fulfilling mizvot. That is not possible in polar areas or in outer space in which time-bound mizvot are irrelevant.

(86) It may be added that Deuteronomy 11:21 records that God commanded mizvot "so that your days will be prolonged upon the land which the Lord your God gave you." Scripture does not speak of "prolongation of life;" instead it speaks of prolongation of "days." In light of the foregoing it may be observed that man can experience longevity and his life can be prolonged even though his "days" are not prolonged, viz., he may live to a ripe old age in a polar region or in outer space. But for a Jew that is not a blessing, or at least not the blessing that God seeks to bestow upon him. Life devoid of time-bound mizvot is not the blessing God seeks to bestow; God's blessing is "that your days be prolonged," i.e., that a Jew enjoy life filled with "days" and fulfillment of time-bound mizvot for which the concept of a halakhic day is a sine qua non.