The Gaon’s Impact on the Interpretation of both Primary Sugyot in Zemanim The Gaon’s Impact on the Interpretation of both Primary Sugyot in Zemanim By William Gewirtz Unquestionably, almost all ḥiddushim in the understanding of the vast literature on zemanim have halakhic implications. My intent is not to influence what has become minhag Yisroel; my focus is on establishing more precise halakhic definitions and theoretical innovations in sugyot that are central to the study of zemanim. Competent poskim can implement any changes in halakhic practice, which they determine that these innovations support.[1] Two areas dominate the study of zemanim: How to determine precise delimiters for the day of the week, which concludes at the end of the period of bein ha-shemashot.[2] How to calculate the hours of the daytime period, which according to all opinions begins at alot hashaḥar. Interestingly, in both Hebrew and English, the words yom and day denote both the daytime period and the day of the week. Our focus is on: the Gaon’s impact on the interpretation of two key aspects of Shabbat 34a-35b, which examines the transition between days of the week, and a key aspect of the Gaon’s clarification of Pesaḥim 94a focused on the daytime period. The approach to the above sugyot were radically changed by the Gaon’s observations.[3] However, only the impact on the former sugyah in Pesaḥim is usually recognized. As I strongly indicated in a paper on errors inhalakhic reasoning, I do not believe that attempts to deal with the critique of Rabbeinu Tam’s position by the Gaon have ever been fully effective. In this paper, however, the focus is not on the extensive halakhic literature written primarily in the period of the aḥaronim, but on the text of the gemara itself and its interpretation by rishonim. The conclusions reached are very different.[4] The first two sections address areas in the gemara beginning on Shabbat 34a where a significant modification to an earlier reading of the gemara, often associated with rishonim aligned with Rabbeinu Tam, is strongly preferred, but only when assuming a slight modification to the presumed opinion of the geonim / Gaon.[5] In a similar vein we suggest a modification to how the bein hashemashot interval is to be used, something I believe to be independent of the positions of Rabbeinu Tam and the Gaon. The third section addresses the Gaon’s innovative reading of the gemara in Pesaḥim 94a, a reading that is strongly supported by both elementary logic and astronomy. Included in the Gaon’s reading is a concept that was never made explicit in rabbinic literature prior to the Gaon, to the best of my knowledge. As will become clear, that observation forms the basis for the Gaon’s challenge to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam. My observations are not intended to be judged as controversial, although concluding a sugyah may not have been correctly understood (or at the very least properly explained) until the 18th century might be jarring. It is beyond my focus or competence to deal with the implications of that observation; observations addressing that point would be welcomed. Section 1: The endpoints of the period of bein ha-shemashot The dispute between the geonim / Gaon and Rabbeinu Tam revolves around the placement of the interval ofbein ha- shemashot, within the interval between sunset and tzait (kol) ha-kokhavim, whose length is (almost always) assumed to be the time needed to walk 4 milin.[6] The length of the bein ha- shemashot period is universally assumed to be the time needed to walk ¾ of a mil. It is normally assumed that the opinion of the geonim / Gaon places the bein ha- shemashot period at the start of that interval, while Rabbeinu Tam places it at its end. Those two alternatives represent opposite extremes. Two adjustments seem reasonable. First, separate the dispute between the geonim / Gaon and Rabbeinu Tam into two distinct components: The first concerns the beginning and the second the end of the bein ha-shemashot period, subject to a constraint that the length of the bein ha- shemashot interval must equal the time to walk ¾ of a mil. Second, assume that there are multiple hybrid / intermediate positions, situated between the two generally assumed alternatives.[7] This allows for an interpretation of the gemara in Shabbat similar (or according to some identical) to the overwhelmingly compelling position of the geonim / Gaon relative to the end of the bein ha-shemashot period, while defining the beginning of the bein ha-shemashot period using the textual approaches of many rishonim, albeit employing a significantly earlier point in time, much closer to sunset. While I have not seen this conceptualization explicitly formulated[8] in the classic halakhic literature, practice and several pragmatic opinions are supportive of this approach. More importantly, the challenges raised to the opinions of both Rabbeinu Tam and theGaon are, without exception, directed at the late ending of the Shabbat according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and at the early beginning of the Shabbat according to the opinion of the Gaon.[9] This approach sidesteps the challenges to both opinions. Additionally, this approach absolutely disputes the view that Anyone who rejects the start of Shabbat precisely at or even a few minutes after sunset must embrace the approach of Rabbeinu Tam, an assumption that does not follow logically, though it is occasionally found in the halakhic literature.[10] There are numerous arguments in support for this position. We cite several of the strongest: 1. The term mi-she-tishkeh ha-ḥamah: Ramban in Torat Ha- Adam[11] and the many ḥakhemai sforad who adopted his position stress that the meaning of the termmi-she- tishkehha-ḥamah unquestionably implies not sunset but a point after A simpler phrase shikiat ha–ḥamah would denote precisely sunset. Of course, mi-she-tishkehha- ḥamah does not imply any specific time but only that the time follows sunset by some number of minutes. The only change required is to assume that mi-she-tishkeh ha- ḥamah is referring to a point much closer to sunset, something that appears more reasonable than a point over 50 minutes later according to the (theoretical) view of Rabbeinu Tam. In other respects, the gemara is read like the numerous rishonim who assumed that mi-she-tishkeh ha-ḥamah cannot refer to sunset proper. 2. Tosefet Shabbat:[12] Ramban argues that tosefet Shabbat could only begin after sunset during an interval that is still a part of the daytime period. Ramban does not consider tosefet Shabbat prior to sunset as meaningful, equating it to the value of illumination from a candle during daylight. 3. The sugyah in Shabbat applies year-round, not only during a specific season or seasons: The gemara in Pesaḥim 94a, which equates the time needed to walk 40 milin with the daytime period, must assume an average day around either the spring or the fall equinox. In the Middle East, during a winter day of approximately 10 hours or a summer day of approximately 14 hours, the distance covered in one day would vary considerably. However, unlike the gemara in Pesaḥim 94a that can only apply to a 12-hour daytime period, thegemara in Shabbat, defines the end of Shabbat using terms like ḥashekhah, hiḥsif ha-elyon ve-hishveh le-taḥton and the appearance of three stars, all of which apply (nearly) uniformly throughout the year.[13] At both the fall and spring equinox, the sun appears in the same place over the equator and you might expect Shabbat to begin and end at the identical time. Certainly, regardless of how one measures darkness, it is equivalently dark any number of minutes after sunset at those two times. However, in Jerusalem and other parts of the Middle East, unrelated to the degree of darkness, stars first appear a number of minutes later (after sunset) in the fall than they do in the spring.[14]Advantaged by the early appearance of Sirius and Canopus in the spring but not the fall, the Gaon restricts the focus of the gemara to the spring only. Note that: 1. All rishonim who choose to comment on the sugyah in Pesaḥim 94a state that the day in question occurs only around the spring (or fall) equinox. 2. Not a single rishon makes an analogous comment, restricting the gemara beginning on Shabbat 34b to any specific time of year. 4. Shmuel’s unchallenged statement:[15]With Prof. Levi’s table (provided in the appendix) as background, examine Shmuel’s unchallenged statement on Shabbat 35a, according to the position of the geonim / Gaon.[16] After discussing the appearance of the horizon and the length of the bein ha-shemashot period, the gemara states the opinion of R. Yehudah in the name of Shmuel who asserts: “one star – daytime, two stars – bein ha- shemashot, and three stars – night.”[17] This is followed by the opinion of Yosi (bar Adin) asserting that the stars in question are neither stars that appear in the day (i. e., large stars[18] or planets) nor small stars that only appear well after the time of tzait ha- kokhavim, but medium stars. How might Shmuel’s statement be reconciled with the previous discussion in the gemara? First, exclude the implausible suggestion that R. Yosi bar Adin’s assertion that Shmuel’s statement is referring to medium stars applies only to the third part (or second and third parts) of the text. Under this interpretation, the first part of Shmuel’s statement concerning one star, includes not only medium stars but also large stars or planets that are on occasion visible before sunset.