CURR 8-14 THE ETERNAL LIGHT Is it actually required by Jewish legal tradition that there be an eternal light in front of the ark? Would it be a serious violation if the light is extinguished when, let us say, it is necessary to change gas pipes or electrical connections? (From Vigdor Kavaler, Rodef Shalom Temple, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.) THE Eternal Light (ner tamid) is one of the most beloved symbols of the synagogue. When a synagogue is dedicated in modern times, one of the most impressive ceremonials is the first lighting of the Eternal Light. Since the use of an Eternal Light in the synagogue is based upon the Eternal Light commanded by God of Moses for the Tabernacle (Exodus 27:20 and Leviticus 24:2), one would imagine that this beloved symbol, with such ancient roots, would continually come up for discussion in the long sequence of Jewish legal literature. Yet the astonishing fact is that it is not mentioned at all as part of the synagogue appurtenances in any of the historic codes, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Shulchan Aruch, or the others. One might say there is not a single classic mention of it (as far as I can find). All the references that are usually cited as referring to an Eternal Light actually refer to an occasional light in the synagogue or else, more generally, to lights lit all over the synagogue during services, but not specifically in front of the Ark. This is the case with the various references in the Midrash. Numbers Rabba 4:20 speaks of the merit of Peultai (mentioned in I Chronicles 26:5) who lit a light before the Ark in the Temple in the morning and then again in the evening. Thus this reference speaks of a light kindled twice a day, but not burning permanently. The same reference is in Shir Rabba 2:5. Nevertheless, Heyman, in his Otzar Divre Chachamim, quotes this reference as saying (“Hamadlik, ” etc.): “He who kindles an eternal light before the Ark is blessed.” Heyman may have seen a manuscript or some edition from which this is an exact quotation, but since the midrash in Shir Rabba quotes the same story as Numbers Rabba about Peultai, it would seem that Heyman’s quotation is only a paraphrase. At all events, I have been unable to find that exact quotation which does speak of an Eternal Light. So also, Isaac Ashkenazi in his Va-ya’an Yitzchok (published Ancona, 1932) says that the Eternal Light is an old custom and gives various references among which are the Kol Bo 15 and the Responsa of Asher ben Jehiel, K’lal 5. Yet both these references speak merely of lighting a light in the synagogue for worship, but not necessarily before the Ark or a single light. So very likely it is with the other reference he gives to the Shelah. However a clear reference is found in the eighteenth century. Jedidiah Samuel Tarika in his RESPONSA Ben Jedid, Chapter 7, in discussing a church lamp says of it, “It is just like ours which we hang before the Ark and which we call ‘eternal’ (t’midim). ” Actually the earliest definite reference that I have come across is in the Talmudic encyclopedia, Pachad Yitzchok, by Isaac Lamperonti, Rabbi of Ferrara, seventeenth- eighteenth century. Ismar Elbogen, in his Gottesdienst, p. 476, says that the first literary mention of the synagogue ner tamid is in the seventeenth century. He may be referring to this citation in Pachad Yitzchok, which actually uses the expression “ner tamid” for the Eternal Light in the synagogue. None of Elbogen’s reference notes indicate that he saw an earlier mention than this one. Also Krauss (Synagogale Altertuemer, p. 391, Note 3) who discusses every detail of the appurtenances in the older synagogues, has made only this single reference (i.e., to Pachad Yitzchok). This absence of any earlier reference to the synagogue Eternal Light is all the more remarkable because the general subject of lights in the synagogue is frequently discussed, from the time of the Tosefta through the Talmud, the Gaonim, and the later legalists. These discussions deal with the donation of lights and lamps to the synagogue (Tosefta Megilla III :3 and b. Arachin 6b) and whether these gifts may be changed for other purposes more needful to the synagogue at the time. Other discussions are on the question of whether a person may study by the light of the synagogue candles or lamps on the Sabbath, since it is gen erally prohibited to use the Sabbath lights for study, lest the person tilt them to improve the oil flow (b. Shabbas 12a). In recent years the discussion has been whether petroleum may be used instead of olive oil, the question being inspired by the fact that the petroleum, although it burns longer, does not have a pleasant odor (see Moses Schick, Orah Hayyim 83). Or there are discussions as to whether the synagogue lights may be used for secular purposes (to light one’s way home, for example; Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 151:19; 154:13, 14). Further references to the question of whether the purpose intended by the donor of lamps and lights may be changed are: Meir of Rothenburg, ed. Berlin, 299; David ben Zimri (Radbaz II: 644); Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 151:19. Additional references to the question of studying by the synagogue lights are the Responsa of the Gaonim, ed. Lyck, 59, Chemda Genuza, 7. These references are discussed in such broad variety and so fully in the literature that we can hardly dismiss, as mere chance, the omission of any mention of the “Eternal” Light. Of course, it is conceivable that although an Eternal Light may have been used in the synagogue right from the beginning, it just happens that no question ever arose about it. This is hardly believable because the various problems constantly discussed in reference to synagogue lights could very well have arisen with regard to the Eternal Light, had it actually been in general use. Clearly, it must have become an honored symbol only in recent centuries. Because of this complete absence of earlier and classical reference to the synagogue Eternal Light in the legal literature, J. Wiesner (in Ben Chananiah, III, p. 581) surmises that it was borrowed from the use of an eternal light in Christian churches. But Wiesner is rather extreme in these matters. Leopold Loew, the editor of the magazine Ben Chananiah adds a note saying, “Why not say that the Jews derived it from the ner tamid in the Tabernacle and the Ancient Temple?” It well may be, therefore, that when the Eternal Light became customary a few centuries ago, it was seen to be analogous to the Eternal Light mentioned in the Bible for Tabernacle and Temple. Be that as it may, the synagogue Eternal Light certainly has been in use for three centuries, and that is long enough for it to have become a beloved symbol. Evidently, its association with the biblically ordained Eternal Light for Tabernacle and Temple gave this symbol of the synagogue (whenever it did arise) an immediate and now a continuous sanctity. Therefore, to answer the question as to how uninterruptedly it must burn, we must consider it by analogy with the Eternal Light of the Tabernacle and Temple, with which it has now been for centuries associated. How eternal was the original Tabernacle-Temple Eternal Light meant to be? Was it to burn without any interruption at all? We know that the fire on the altar is described as “not to be extinguished” (Leviticus 6:5). But the two biblical references to the Eternal Light, ner tamid, do not say that it is not to be extinguished. It is quite possible that the word tamid here does not mean “eternal,” but “regular.” In other words, the lights were to be kindled every day, but not necessarily to burn all of the day, so that one day’s light should continue into the next, uninterrupted. In fact, Rashi to the passage in Exodus simply says that “tamid” here means “every night.” Rashi’s statement is an epitome of his argument in b. Hagiga 26b. The Tosfos there partially disagrees with Rashi and says that one of the two Tabernacle and Temple lights did miraculously stay alight permanently. The Talmud also (in Tamid 30b) describes how the lamps were cleaned every day at dusk. The priest cleaned every one except one which remained alight until the others were cleaned and rekindled. This one light was called “the western light,” and it is presumed that our single, eternal light is derived from (or is analogous to) this. At all events, Isaac Lamperonti, in the first reference which I have found to ner tamid, used in the synagogue (s.v., ner tamid) says that since Rashi has explained that “tamid” in relation to the Tabernacle and Temple Light did not mean “continuous,” but “regular,” therefore we must conclude frohi Rashi that the ner tamid which we now have in the synagogue, which is to us “the small sanctuary,” need not burn at all except at the hour of prayer. (The phrase, “the small sanctuary,” for the synagogue, comes from b. Megilla 29a, based upon Ezekiel 11:16.) Here we have then, a clear statement that the light may even be extinguished. But, of course, we must bear in mind that two centuries ago they had only oil lamps or tallow candles, and to keep a light continuous would be a difficult task. This may be an additional reason for assuming that they never had an Eternal Light in the synagogue in the past, namely, the technical difficulty involved.