Ner tamid (eternal light)

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. At all events, nowadays, with gas or electricity, it is easily possible to have the Eternal Light actually continuous, except for some accident. In that case, it should certainly be maintained as such. But should it be necessary, for purposes of rewiring or pipe refitting, to extinguish it, then there is no actual violation of the law involved at all. It is for us to maintain the general ideal of an eternally burning light, but we must remember that the authorities doubt whether even the original light in the Tab ernacle and Temple itself was actually meant “never to be extinguished.”

TRR 34-36

THE EXTRA ETERNAL LIGHT

QUESTION:

A member of the congregation possesses the Eternal Light from an old dismantled synagogue. She offers it to the Temple to be placed, perhaps, at the entrance of the school facilities, perhaps as a symbol of the light of learning. May this be done? Is it not perhaps a derogation of the Eternal Light’s greater sanctity? (Asked by Rabbi Richard A. Zionts, Shreveport, Louisiana.)

ANSWER:

It is an ongoing question in the halakhah as to what may be done with sacred objects that are no longer in their normal use. The fullest discussion of this question is to be found in Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 154 (although the phrase describing these sacred objects stems originally from the Talmud, Megillah 26b). It is clear that there are various degrees of sanctity pertaining to ritual objects. Perhaps the highest degree (i.e., among the appurtenances) are those described as tashmishei kedushah (i.e., appurtenances to the sacred). This would include, for example, the covering for a Sefer Torah (by the way, Joseph Caro in the Shulhan Arukh speaks of the covering as a “case” for the Sefer Torah because the Sephardim kept the Torah in a hinged metal case; we would say the mantle of the Torah is an appurtenance of the holy – tashmishei qedushah). The next level of holiness below that is called tashmishei mitzvah. That would refer to the Sukkah, the lulav, the shofar, etc., the straps of the tefillin, etc. The third and the least degree of sanctity is called tashmishei bet hakenneset, “appurtenances to the synagogue building.” There is a different type of disposal for the various degrees. The most sacred cannot be redeemed, but when out of use must be buried. That is why it is customary to bury an unusable Sefer Torah in the grave of a righteous scholar. The second level may be disposed of in any way (Megillah 26b).

Relevant to our question, then, is the following: To which degree of sacredness must we assign the Eternal Light which hangs before the Ark? A study of the literature involved reveals the rather surprising fact that the Eternal Light before our Arks has almost no historical past. See the full discussion in Current Reform Responsa, the first responsum. Although, of course, there was an Eternal Light in the Temple in Jerusalem, and our Eternal Light is in memory of that, nevertheless no mention is made of it before the 18th century. Therefore, it cannot be (and could not be) classified among any of the three degrees of sanctity mentioned in the Shulhan Arukh.

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the Eternal Light cannot be said to have “official” sacred status, it has developed the connotation of sacredness to our people for at least two centuries now, and any unworthy use of it would create a sense of profanation among our people. The very fact that the question was asked is an indication of the special sacredness that is associated with the Eternal Light. I would not, for example, hang it in front of an assembly hall, where there are dances and lively celebrations. Many would feel hurt at such hilarity within the confines of a place marked out by the Eternal Light. But to put it in front of a school might well be an appropriate place for it.

To sum up: The Eternal Light is not one of the regularly listed sacred objects that requires special treatment even when out of use. It may be used, therefore, as an extra symbol at the door of the school.

TRR 1-3

AS TO THE ETERNAL LIGHT

QUESTION:

In this synagogue the Eternal Light is in a recess in the wall near the Ark. Must it not be outside of the wall? Also, may the Eternal Light be maintained by solar energy? (Asked by Rabbi Martin Weitz, Laguna Hills, California.)

ANSWER:

Questions as to the proper location of the Eternal Light and the fuel which keeps it burning depend for their answer upon the basic question of the status of the Eternal Light in the halakhah. It should be clear at the outset that this light which is kept kindled before the Ark has virtually no basis in the halakhah. Although the halakhah has full and clear rules as to the Torah, the Ark and other synagogue appurtenances, there are no references to the Eternal Light before the Ark, either in the Talmud or in the Codes.

Elbogen in his Gottesdienst (p. 476) says that the first literary reference to the Eternal Light is in the 17th Century. He may be referring to the reference (which may well be the first one) in Pahad Yitzhhaq by Isaac Lamperonti, Rabbi of Ferrara in the 17th-18th Century, who says under the heading Ner Tamid: “There is no requirement to have a Ner Tamid in the synagogue except during the time of prayer.” There are, of course, many references to lights in the synagogue and to the merit earned by those who provide them, but these refer to lights in general for worship or study, not to a single light before the Ark (Ner Tamid). (See the full discussion of the legal status of the Ner Tamid in Current Reform Responsa, p. 8 ff.)

We may therefore conclude that the Ner Tamid as a symbol is about three centuries old. But that is a span of time long enough for it to have become a beloved symbol which people are eager to observe in proper fashion. What, then, is the proper way of placing it and maintaining it?

It is clear that its location before the Ark is an analogy to the light before the Ark in the Wilderness Tabernacle and then in the Temple in Jerusalem. The location is definitely fixed in the command given by Moses as follows: “Command the Children of Israel that they bring pure olive oil for the light to burn continually outside the curtain which is before the Testimony” (i.e., the Ark) (Exodus 27:20.21 and also Leviticus 24:2)

It is of course difficult to see how that Tabernacle light could have been continuous. A cup of oil with a wick floating on it can hardly be made into a continual light. Therefore, Rashi explains the word Tamid to be not continuous , but regular. The Tamid, as Rashi explains it, means a light which was lit daily, i.e., regularly. But aside from this question of “continuity” or “regularity” there is no question of the location of the Tabernacle lamp. Therefore as the lamp in the Tabernacle and the Temple stood in front of the curtain behind which was the Ark, so our custom is to have the light outside of the curtain in front of the Ark.

Therefore, the answer to the first question as to the position of the light is that we should indeed follow the established custom based on the analogy of the light in the ancient Temple and we hang the lamp above and outside the Ark curtain. This is not a matter of whether the present light in the wall niche is (as the questioner puts it) kosher or not. It is simply a matter of well established custom.

As to the second question, whether or not the lamp may be maintained by solar energy, the fuel referred to in Exodus is “pure olive oil.” This has, of course, not been followed strictly in the synagogue light. There is a variety of possible fuels and wicks mentioned in the law, not with regard to the Temple Light, but with regard to the Sabbath Lights. The law as to the fuel and the wicks stems from Chapter 2 of the Tractate Shabbat and is codified in the Shulkhan Aruldi (Orah Hayyim 264). The general decision is that no fuel may be used that gives off an unpleasant smell. Therefore, using the analogy with the Sabbath Lights, we use gas or electricity which is odorless and fairly continuous.

Therefore as to the specific question whether or not solar energy may be used, there can be no possible objection, provided that the energy cell does not need to be taken out periodically to be reexposed to the sunlight and in the meantime the Ner Tamid be extinguished. Of course, even when the Ner Tamid is fuelled by gas or electricity, we cannot guarantee that it will be continuous light. The gas house or the fuel station may fail at times and the light may go out. But if the solar power can keep the light going most of the time, that will fulfill the requirement of the law and the custom as indicated by the statement of Isaac Lamperonti quoted above.

NARR 77

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

47. Eternal Light in an Outdoor Synagogue

QUESTION: During the summer months our synagogue utilizes a camp at which services are held each day in an amphitheater also used for other purposes. Should the eternal light be kept burning even when the ark and other synagogue appurtenances have been removed? (Tod Nathan, Los Angeles CA)ANSWER: The eternal light is reminiscent of the fire which burned on the altar in the Tent of Meeting and the later Temple and the candelabrum eternally lit there (Lev 6.5; Hag 26b). The lamps of the candelabrum were carefully cleaned each day, but the western most light was always kept burning and from it the others were lit after they had been cleaned (Tamid 30b). Our synagogue eternal light may have been derived from this source, however, there is no reference to it until the seventeenth century writer Isaac Lamperonti (Pahad Yitzhaq; I. Elbogen Gottesdienst p 476). Undoubtedly various lights were kept burning in the synagogues through the ages, but they like the other lights in the Temple were lit each day (Midrash Rabbah 4.20; Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2.5; Tosefta Meg 3.3; Arakhin 6b). None of these citations or discussion of the synagogue mention the ner tamid as a light which was perpetually burning. We may conclude from Isaac Lamperonti that this light was lit only during hours of worship. Although it has become our custom to have a light perpetually burning in the synagogue, it is not necessary as long as the light burns during the time of services. In the setting which you have described the eternal light should be removed with the ark and the other synagogue appurtenances.July 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.