Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov? – Gefet #10

Why is There a Prohibition to Do Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov? Is it possible to perform this operation without any prohibition? Rashi has a three part mystery. Join us in solving it.

 

Why is There a Prohibition to Do Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov?

We have an accepted rule regarding hilchot shabbat and yom tov that for every prohibition there is a reason. However, regarding doing business, we are faced with the question of why is this action prohibited when it can be done without transgressing any of the avot melacha! Our sugiya is one of the doors through which we can clarify this point. This time we will examine Rashi and the complexity of his position on the sugiya.

The mishna on daf 36b states:

ืžืฉื ื”. ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื•ืช, ืžืฉื•ื ืจืฉื•ืช, ืžืฉื•ื ืžืฆื•ื”, ื‘ืฉื‘ืช – ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘. ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื•ืช: ืœื ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ, ื•ืœื ืจื•ื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ืžื”, ื•ืœื ืฉื˜ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื™ื, ื•ืœื ืžื˜ืคื—ื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ืžืกืคืงื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ืžืจืงื“ื™ืŸ. ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจืฉื•ืช: ืœื ื“ื ื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ. ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืฆื•ื”: ืœื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ืžืขืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ืžื—ืจื™ืžื™ืŸ, ื•ืœื ืžื’ื‘ื™ื”ื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžืขืฉืจ. ื›ืœ ืืœื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืžืจื•, ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช. ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืœืฉื‘ืช ืืœื ืื•ื›ืœ ื ืคืฉ ื‘ืœื‘ื“.

The gemara asks why do we not consecrate objects for the beit hamikdash, take valuation vows, consecrate objects for use of the cohanim, nor separate teruma and maโ€™aser sheini on shabbat and yom tov, if these are mitzvot? It answers that the reason for all of these is that it is similar to doing commerce. Rashi comes to our aid in deciphering the connection between commerce and the list mentioned in the mishna:

ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื— ื•ืžืžื›ืจ – ื“ืœืžืงื— ื•ืžืžื›ืจ ื“ืžื•, ืฉืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžืจืฉื•ืชื• ืœืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ, ื•ืžืงื— ื•ืžืžื›ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืžืฆื•ื ื—ืคืฆืš ื•ื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ (ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ื ื—), ืื™ ื ืžื™: ืžืงื— ื•ืžืžื›ืจ ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื” ืฉื˜ืจื™ ืžื›ื™ืจื”, ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ: ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื” ื’ื–ืจื” ืœื’ื–ืจื”, ื›ื•ืœื” ื—ื“ื ื’ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื.

Rashi here explains that all of these actions are similar to commerce or are likely to lead to writing documents which is prohibited from the Torah.ย 

Rashiโ€™s words suggest an interesting diyuk. Rashi brings two different possibilities for the reason for the prohibition of doing business – one is based on the words of Yeshayahu, where it seems to be connected to the unique character of the day, and the second is a decree aimed at preventing one from transgressing one of the 39 melachot: writing.ย 

We need to clarify what is the relationship between these two reasons brought consecutively by Rashi – why is it prohibited to do business on shabbat? We will examine the note of Rabbi Akiva Eiger in ื’ืœื™ื•ืŸ ื”ืฉ”ืก:

ืจืฉ”ื™ ื“”ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื— ื•ืžืžื›ืจ ื•ื›ื•’ ืืกื•ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžืงืจื. ืขื™ื™ืŸ ืจืฉ”ื™ ืœืขื™ืœ ื“ืฃ ื›ื– ืข”ื‘ ื“”ื” ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืงื™ืŸ.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger sends us to look in Rashi on daf 27, and as is characteristic of him, suffices with the reference only, which turns it into a sort of riddle which, by opening the source, will illuminate new things for us.ย 

The mishna and gemara on daf 27 discuss the prohibition of setting the price for an animal on shabbat:ย 

ืžืฉื ื”. ืื™ืŸ ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘, ืื‘ืœ ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืžืขืจื‘ ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘, ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ื.

ื’ืžืจื. ืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ื ืžื ื™ืŸ? ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ: ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืงื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘.

Rashi explains why lechatchila it is prohibited to set a price for an animal on shabbat:

ื’ืžืจื. ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืงื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื – ื“ืžืงื— ื•ืžืžื›ืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืกื•ืจ, ื‘ืกืคืจ ืขื–ืจื (ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื™ื’).

 

Rashi on daf 27 brings another source for the prohibition of doing business from Ketuvim: a passuk from Nechemia. The question arises – what is the relationship between the three sources that Rashi brings for the prohibition of doing business?

We will again present each of the three sources and will expand on each one:

  1. Doing business is prohibited because of the passuk in Yeshayahu 58:13:ย 

ืึดืึพืชึผึธืฉืึดึคื™ื‘ ืžึดืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธืชึ™ ืจึทื’ึฐืœึถึ”ืšึธ ืขึฒืฉื‚ึฅื•ึนืช ื—ึฒืคึธืฆึถึ–ื™ืšึธ ื‘ึผึฐื™ึฃื•ึนื ืงึธื“ึฐืฉืึดึ‘ื™ ื•ึฐืงึธืจึธึจืืชึธ ืœึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึœืช ืขึนึ—ื ึถื’ ืœึดืงึฐื“ึคื•ึนืฉื ื™ึฐืงึนื•ึธืงึ™ ืžึฐื›ึปื‘ึผึธึ”ื“ ื•ึฐื›ึดื‘ึผึทื“ึฐืชึผื•ึนึ™ ืžึตืขึฒืฉื‚ึฃื•ึนืช ื“ึผึฐืจึธื›ึถึ”ื™ืšึธ ืžึดืžึผึฐืฆึฅื•ึนื ื—ึถืคึฐืฆึฐืšึธึ– ื•ึฐื“ึทื‘ึผึตึฅืจ ื“ึผึธื‘ึธึฝืจ

  1. Doing business is prohibited from the pesukim in Ezra and Nechemia 13:

ื‘ึผึทื™ึผึธืžึดึฃื™ื ื”ึธื”ึตึกืžึผึธื” ืจึธืึดึฃื™ืชึดื™ ื‘ึดึฝื™ื”ื•ึผื“ึธึฃื”ื€ ื“ึนึฝืจึฐื›ึดึฝื™ืึพื’ึผึดืชึผึฃื•ึนืชื€ ื‘ึผึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึกืช ื•ึผืžึฐื‘ึดื™ืึดึฃื™ื ื”ึธืขึฒืจึตืžึฃื•ึนืช ื•ึฐึฝืขึนืžึฐืกึดึชื™ื ืขึทืœึพ ื”ึทื—ึฒืžึนืจึดึŸื™ื ื•ึฐืึทืฃึพื™ึทึœื™ึดืŸ ืขึฒื ึธื‘ึดึคื™ื ื•ึผืชึฐืึตื ึดื™ืึ™ ื•ึฐื›ึธืœึพืžึทืฉึผื‚ึธึ”ื ื•ึผืžึฐื‘ึดื™ืึดึฅื™ื ื™ึฐืจื•ึผืฉืึธืœึทึดึ–ื ื‘ึผึฐื™ึฃื•ึนื ื”ึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึ‘ืช ื•ึธืึธืขึดึ•ื™ื“ ื‘ึผึฐื™ึ–ื•ึนื ืžึดื›ึฐืจึธึฅื ืฆึธึฝื™ึดื“: (ื˜ื–) ื•ึฐื”ึทืฆึผึนืจึดื™ืึ™ ื™ึธึฃืฉืึฐื‘ื•ึผ ื‘ึธึ”ื”ึผ ืžึฐื‘ึดื™ืึดึฅื™ื ื“ึผึธึ–ืื’ ื•ึฐื›ึธืœึพืžึถึ‘ื›ึถืจ ื•ึผืžึนื›ึฐืจึดึงื™ื ื‘ึผึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึ›ืช ืœึดื‘ึฐื ึตึฅื™ ื™ึฐื”ื•ึผื“ึธึ–ื” ื•ึผื‘ึดื™ืจื•ึผืฉืึธืœึธึดึฝื: (ื™ื–) ื•ึธืึธืจึดึ•ื™ื‘ึธื” ืึตึ–ืช ื—ึนืจึตึฃื™ ื™ึฐื”ื•ึผื“ึธึ‘ื” ื•ึธืึนืžึฐืจึธึฃื” ืœึธื”ึถึ—ื ืžึธึฝื”ึพื”ึทื“ึผึธื‘ึธึจืจ ื”ึธืจึธึคืข ื”ึทื–ึผึถื”ึ™ ืึฒืฉืึถึฃืจ ืึทืชึผึถึฃื ืขึนืฉื‚ึดึ”ื™ื ื•ึผึฝืžึฐื—ึทืœึผึฐืœึดึ–ื™ื ืึถืชึพื™ึฅื•ึนื ื”ึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึฝืช: (ื™ื—) ื”ึฒืœึจื•ึนื ื›ึนึคื” ืขึธืฉื‚ื•ึผึ™ ืึฒื‘ึนึฃืชึตื™ื›ึถึ”ื ื•ึทื™ึผึธื‘ึตึจื ืึฑืœึนื”ึตึœื™ื ื•ึผ ืขึธืœึตึ—ื™ื ื•ึผ ืึตึšืช ื›ึผึธืœึพื”ึธืจึธืขึธึฃื” ื”ึทื–ึผึนึ”ืืช ื•ึฐืขึทึ–ืœ ื”ึธืขึดึฃื™ืจ ื”ึทื–ึผึนึ‘ืืช ื•ึฐืึทืชึผึถึžื ืžื•ึนืกึดื™ืคึดึคื™ื ื—ึธืจื•ึนืŸึ™ ืขึทืœึพื™ึดืฉื‚ึฐืจึธืึตึ”ืœ ืœึฐื—ึทืœึผึตึ–ืœ ืึถืชึพื”ึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึฝืช: ืค (ื™ื˜) ื•ึทื™ึฐื”ึดึกื™ ื›ึผึทืึฒืฉืึถึฃืจ ืฆึธึฝืœึฒืœื•ึผึฉ ืฉืึทืขึฒืจึตึจื™ ื™ึฐืจื•ึผืฉืึธืœึทึดึœื ืœึดืคึฐื ึตึฃื™ ื”ึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึ—ืช ื•ึธืึนึฝืžึฐืจึธื”ึ™ ื•ึทื™ึผึดืกึผึธื’ึฐืจึฃื•ึผ ื”ึทื“ึผึฐืœึธืชึ”ื•ึนืช ื•ึธืึนึฃืžึฐืจึธึ”ื” ืึฒืฉืึถืจึ™ ืœึนึฃื ื™ึดืคึฐืชึผึธื—ึ”ื•ึผื ืขึทึ–ื“ ืึทื—ึทึฃืจ ื”ึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึ‘ืช ื•ึผืžึดื ึผึฐืขึธืจึทึ—ื™ ื”ึถึฝืขึฑืžึทึ™ื“ึฐืชึผึดื™ึ™ ืขึทืœึพื”ึทืฉึผืึฐืขึธืจึดึ”ื™ื ืœึนืึพื™ึธื‘ึฅื•ึนื ืžึทืฉึผื‚ึธึ–ื ื‘ึผึฐื™ึฅื•ึนื ื”ึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึฝืช: (ื›) ื•ึทื™ึผึธืœึดึจื™ื ื•ึผ ื”ึธืจึนื›ึฐืœึดึœื™ื ื•ึผืžึนื›ึฐืจึตึงื™ ื›ึธืœึพืžึดืžึฐื›ึผึธึ›ืจ ืžึดื—ึฅื•ึผืฅ ืœึดื™ืจื•ึผืฉืึธืœึธึดึ–ื ืคึผึทึฅืขึทื ื•ึผืฉืึฐืชึผึธึฝื™ึดื: (ื›ื) ื•ึธืึธืขึดึฃื™ื“ึธื” ื‘ึธื”ึถึ—ื ื•ึธืึนืžึฐืจึธึคื” ืึฒืœึตื™ื”ึถืึ™ ืžึทื“ึผึœื•ึผืขึท ืึทืชึผึถึคื ืœึตื ึดื™ืึ™ ื ึถึฃื’ึถื“ ื”ึทื—ื•ึนืžึธึ”ื” ืึดืึพืชึผึดืฉืึฐื ึ•ื•ึผ ื™ึธึ–ื“ ืึถืฉืึฐืœึทึฃื— ื‘ึผึธื›ึถึ‘ื ืžึดืŸึพื”ึธืขึตึฃืช ื”ึทื”ึดึ”ื™ื ืœึนืึพื‘ึธึ–ืื•ึผ ื‘ึผึทืฉึผืึทื‘ึผึธึฝืช: ืกย 

  1. Doing business is prohibited as a decree lest one come to write.ย 

The first two sources point to an ืื™ืกื•ืจ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื or something close to this. The words of Yeshayahu are described by Rashi as a Torah prohibition – a surprising expression which points to a type of prohibition which is stricter than a rabbinic prohibition. Ezraโ€™s adamentness that the nation not do business on shabbat also seems to be connected to a Torah prohibition and not to a decree. However, the third source points to a prohibition whose strength is rabbinic, and is a fence around a different prohibition. In light of these three different sources brought by Rashi, the question arises – when is the prohibition against doing business a prohibition which is more than a rabbinic prohibition, and what is the source and character of this prohibition, which is not one of the 39 melachot?

The rishonim and achronim have different approaches which can shed light on our Rashi.ย 

The Rambanโ€™s approach to the mitzvah of resting on shabbat:

The Ramban on the Torah, in Vayikra 23:24, asks as to the language of the Torah: why does the Torah refer to chagim as โ€œืฉื‘ืชื•ืŸโ€? The Ramban brings the statement of Rav Ashi from Shabbat daf 24 where he says that there is a mitzvah to rest on shabbatot and chagim, and one who does not do this transgresses a positive mitzvah. The Ramban is surprised by his words and asks what is the halachic meaning of this โ€œืฉื‘ืชื•ืŸโ€ – the prohibition of doing melacha is generally connected to specific actions which were spelled out. To what then is the mitzvah of โ€œืฉื‘ืชื•ืŸโ€ referring? The Ramban suggests the following:ย 

ื•ื ืจืื” ืœื™ ืฉื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื”ื–ื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื ืฆื˜ื•ื™ื ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืœื ื• ืžื ื•ื—ื” ื‘ื™”ื˜ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžืœืื›ื”, ืœื ืฉื™ื˜ืจื— ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืœืžื“ื•ื“ ื”ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ื•ืœืฉืงื•ืœ ื”ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื”ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ืœืžืœื ื”ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ื™ื™ืŸ, ื•ืœืคื ื•ืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื’ื ื”ืื‘ื ื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื, ื•ืื ื”ื™ืชื” ืขื™ืจ ืžื•ืงืคืช ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื ืขื•ืœื•ืช ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื™ื”ื™ื• ืขื•ืžืกื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืืฃ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืชืื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ืžืฉื ื™ื‘ื™ืื• ื‘ื™”ื˜ ื•ื™ื”ื™ื” ื”ืฉื•ืง ืžืœื ืœื›ืœ ืžืงื— ื•ืžืžื›ืจ, ื•ืชื”ื™ื” ื”ื—ื ื•ืช ืคืชื•ื—ื” ื•ื”ื—ื ื•ื ื™ ืžืงื™ืฃ ื•ื”ืฉืœื—ื ื™ื ืขืœ ืฉืœื—ื ื ื•ื”ื–ื”ื•ื‘ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื, ื•ื™ื”ื™ื• ื”ืคื•ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉื›ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœืžืœืื›ืชืŸ ื•ืžืฉื›ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืขืฆืžื ื›ื—ื•ืœ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืœื• ื•ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ, ื•ื”ื•ืชืจื• ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ื”ืืœื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืฉื‘ืช ืขืฆืžื” ืฉื‘ื›ืœ ื–ื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ืžืœืื›ื”, ืœื›ืš ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” “ืฉื‘ืชื•ืŸ” ืฉื™ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื ืฉื‘ื™ืชื” ื•ืžื ื•ื—ื” ืœื ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ืจื—. ื•ื–ื”ื• ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ื˜ื•ื‘ ื•ื™ืคื”:ย 

This approach of the Ramban can clarify Rashi: if a person does a single act of business, he transgresses a rabbinic decree lest he come to write. But if there is an active market on shabbat, the entire character of the day of shabbat as a day of rest is damaged by the business that is taking place, and then the positive ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื of โ€œืฉื‘ืชื•ืŸโ€ is transgressed. In light of this, we can understand why Ezra was so strict about the people not doing business. Ezra was speaking out against their reality in which the people were transgressing on a Torah level, as the special character of shabbat was ruined because of the market that was active outside of Jerusalem. We can understand from here that the character of the prohibition is connected to the words of the navi: “ืžืžืฆื•ื ื—ืคืฆืš ื•ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ”. The damage is on a Torah level, and is based on a passuk, as Rashi says, but it is expressed through damaging the character of the day, meaning in the way that we speak and the actions that we do, which are described by the navi.ย 

These words of the Ramban illuminate and clarify Rashiโ€™s position, as well as a strange halacha in the Rambam. The Rambam in Hilchot Shabbat 1:1 writes:

ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉืžื•ืช ื›”ื’ ืชืฉื‘ื•ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžืœืื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืฉื‘ื•ืช ืžื”ืŸ, ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืจื‘ื” ื”ืŸ ืฉืืกืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื•ืช, ืžื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ืœืžืœืื›ื•ืช ื•ืžื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ื ื’ื–ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื‘ื•ื ืžื”ืŸ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืกืงื™ืœื”, ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ.ย 

The opening of the Rambamโ€™s words is strange – chapter 21 deals with a host of rabbinic laws, and so why does the Rambam open with a statement about a Torah law? The Chatam Sofer in ื—ืœืง ื”’ ื‘ื”ืฉืžื˜ื•ืช ืกื™ืžืŸ ืงืฆื” addresses this question in his answer to the question of whether or not a person who opens his store on shabbat or yom tov is considered to have transgressed shabbat on a Torah level. The Chatam Sofer discusses this and says that while there is no punishment of stoning for this, he is still transgressing shabbat, as he is not fulfilling the positive mitzvah of โ€œืฉื‘ืชื•ืŸโ€ that is mentioned by the Ramban. The Chatam Sofer claims that this is also the explanation for the Rambam in this halacha. In the background of the rabbinic prohibition lies a ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื mitzvah. The merchant who transgresses rabbinic prohibitions which hurt the character of the shabbat will also cause transgression of a positive Torah level mitzvah of resting.ย 

Summary:

We have seen three different explanations in Rashi as to the basis of the prohibition of doing business – two of them point to a Torah law while the third states that we are dealing with a rabbinic law. With the help of the Ramban, we saw that there is a ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื mitzvah of rest on shabbat. A person who damages the unique character of shabbat by widespread transgression of rabbinic prohibitions will transgress this mitzvah as well. The Ramban helps to understand Nechemia 13 who describes Ezraโ€™s great effort to fight the market that was active in Jerusalem on shabbatot, and also to understand the Rambamโ€™s strange wording.ย 

 

Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Rabbanit Shimoni has learned at Migdal Oz, Matan, and the Susi Bradfield Womenโ€™s Institute for Halakhic Leadership at Midreshet Lindenbaum. She holds a BFA from Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design and a BEd in Torah Shebeโ€™al Peh and Jewish Thought from Herzog College. She is currently studying towards an MA in Jewish Thought Education at Herzog College. Rabbanit Shimoni taught gemara and halakha at Pelech High School and served as a ramit for shana bet at Migdal Oz. She directs Meshivat Nefesh, the online responsa program of the rabbaniyot of Beit Hillel. She is also a plastic artist and member of โ€œA Studio of Her Own.
Scroll To Top